Moore Wrong Than Right
By Michael The Libertarian
It's so disappointing …
I wrote a piece, just the other day, trying to delineate the
differences on both sides of the “If the allegations are true ...”
phrase.
Well, it's time for me to eat some crow.
I listened to Judge Moore on the Sean Hannity radio show (Full
disclosure: Sean and I played little league baseball against each
other in the FSAA).
When Hannity mentioned Moore would be on his radio show, the next
day, I assumed he was offering Moore a platform to answer the
allegations in a fair way, without going on one of the MSM channels
and getting his chestnuts roasted, unfairly. I assumed it was a
vehicle for Moore to “rehabilitate” his reputation.
It may very well have been all of that, but Hannity was brilliant;
asking all of the
questions that needed to be asked. Quite frankly, he reminded me of a
well-disciplined attorney questioning a witness, more than he did a
really good journalist (That's meant as a compliment, by the way).
Conversely, Moore left me feeling
like I needed an extra shower. His answers were non-denial denials
and as vague as to not really be answers (IMNSHO). Whether “forced”
or not; whether “criminal” (inappropriate contact, ranging all
the way up to sex) or not, I was convinced by Moore himself, that he
actively pursued inappropriate/illegal relationships with under-aged
girls.
I'm not willing to refer to him as a
child molester, just yet, but my “ICK-O-Meter™” is pointing
well into the red.
However, I would like to use this as
a “jumping off point” for a pet peeve of mine:
As is usual for me, I am of two
minds on an issue, but not in the typical sense. For most crimes, I
feel that a Statute of Limitations (SoL) should apply. I don't
believe the government has a right to wait for years and decades and
then, “spring” an old charge on you. Don't get me wrong, I'm a
believer in the rule of law, but if a person breaks the law and
doesn't get charged for it within a reasonable amount of time, they
should never be charged. Period.
On the other hand, I believe there
are some crimes that are so egregious, there should never
be a SoL placed on them. I tend to go with what I consider to be “The
Big Three”: homicide (More like murder, but the lesser charges
should USUALLY be included), rape, and child molestation.
These are crimes that are so
damaging to the individual and to society, as a whole, I believe they
should always be prosecuted.
Now, I understand this presents
problems. Facts get “hazy” evidence degrades, etc. The one bone
of contention I have is with the outrageous claims of: “__% of all
sexual harassment/assault/rape/molestation go unreported.”, when
stated as flat-out facts. Why do I get flustered about it? I'm no
mathematician and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express™, last
night, but I can do some basic math:
Let T=total number of sex “crimes”
Let R=total number of reported sex
“crimes”
Let P=percentage of unreported sex
“crimes”
Please solve for P
P = R/T
Don't waste your time. It can't be
done. You would need to know the true value of the most important
variable (T), in order to accurately solve it. Since by the very
nature of the question, we can never know “T”, it is unsolvable
and therefore, when stated as fact, a bald-faced lie.
I would grant (because I believe)
that possibly as many as half of all sex crimes are never reported,
but forget those reported. There are too many sex crimes, full stop.
That's not really the point, though.
When an accuser has allowed the SoL to elapse, they should be held to
a certain standard of “proof” of their allegations or, they
should shut up. Allegations, thirty years after the fact are nothing
more than an attempt to defame.
There has to be some kind of way to
make this a reality. If you don't “report” an incident until
thirty years later, you should NOT be able to shout them from the
rooftops (and be believed), when you finally do.
Now, regarding my pet peeve: If we
were to remove the SoL from sex crime laws, at least those
allegations would get their day in court. Evidence could be brought,
witnesses questioned and cross-examined, a jury (or judge) could
decide. There would be some element of finding of fact.
SoLs are a hindrance to justice, not
just for real victims, but for those who are falsely accused.
- Michael
Comments
Post a Comment