In different ways, Michael Brown, Bill Vallicella, Dennis Prager, and Robert Gagnon have all argued that even if the allegation against Kavanaugh is true, he should still be confirmed:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2018/09/dennis-prager-the-charges-against-kavanaugh-should-be-ignored.html
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2018/09/dennis-prager-the-charges-against-kavanaugh-should-be-ignored.html
Their arguments are worth reading. The tactical advantage of that position is that you can discount the allegations, discount calls for an investigation. It's a simplifying maneuver.
Since I think Ford's story is weak, I don't need to have a considered answer to that hypothetical. I think it's unnecessary to go there. But if we do go there, it's much harder to maintain our moral footing. We lose some landmarks.
1. One problem is that when people get away with a crime for many years, that aggravates rather than mitigates the original offense. Consider Michael Skakel and Bill Cosby, who were able to elude justice for so long. (Skakel is still gaming the system.) I'm not saying the allegation against Kavanaugh is morally comparable, but just using extreme examples to illustrate a point of principle.
It's good when justice finally catches up with them. They managed to cheat justice for so long. To cheat the victim's right that just retribution be exacted on the perp.
2. The best reason not to harm the innocent is because it's wrong to harm the innocent. That's the direct reason. That's the best disincetive.
A secondary disincentive is self-interest. If the would-be perp fears the consequences in case he's caught. The harm his action might do to his own prospects. Although that's not an admirable motive, it's often what prevents wrongdoing. If, however, we reward a fugitive of justice so long as he's able to play out the clock, then that dilutes the deterrent value of punishment.
3. Assuming that he's guilty, there's more than one way it might have happened:
i) They were both sober
ii) They were both drunk
iii) He was sober and she was drunk
iv) He was drunk and she was sober
Culpability comes in degrees. Which of those scenarios is true affects the gravity of the offense. Intoxication can sometimes put one in a state of diminished responsibility. It can also make it easier to take advantage of someone. Depending on who's drunk or sober, that can be an aggravating or extenuating circumstance.
4. Hopefully, Brown, Prager, and Gagnon don't think it makes no difference what you do as a minor so long as you clean up your act. If Michael Skakel turned over a new leaf after bludgeoning Martha Moxley to death, does that mean his crime should not permanently stigmatize him?
What about teenage members of Muslim rape-gangs? What about young Muslims who disfigure women in acid attacks? Is there any adequate restitution?
Liberals are a desperate bunch, always running from the voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteRight and if someone, especially a leader or public figure, is consciously lying about something really bad he did a long time ago in order to protect his own reputation, then that adds to the offense in the here and now.
ReplyDeleteIt's odd that those who take the "it doesn't matter if so-and-so did it" approach to these things *never* consider that very seriously. It's almost like they think that consciously lying about such a thing is a mere pecadillo if the accuser should not have brought it up after so many years. It's like, "If you should have brought this up years ago and are just bringing it up now for a bad motive now, then I have a right to lie about it now." That does not follow.
However, to me the whole thing is so, so cynical that I'm really dubious (balanced at least) that they are true.
It may not be coincidental that Prager is on his third marriage. He may have the foresight to adjust his views of sexual morality to dovetail with his practice, to preempt charges of hypocrisy.
Delete