Harry Marks wrote: We have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of accusations in the last year about sexual abuse. Not a single one has turned out to be manufactured for attention
Sorry to dwell on this Kavanaugh case, but I find it fascinating as an example of culture war. There should be no question that the recent recognition of the human rights of victims of sexual assault is an overdue corrective to a previous culture of impunity. I have myself made numerous comments about the pathology of abuse in churches, and what a depraved culture this pattern of conduct indicates. But such correctives do have a tendency to swing the pendulum too far in some cases. Some studies have found a high proportion of rape claims to be false, as detailed at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape The assumption that a victim will be automatically believed brings a severe moral hazard. This obviously traumatises victims when their honest accounts are disbelieved, and yet avoiding punishment of the innocent and preventing vexatious accusations are important public goods.
Harry Marks wrote:"guilt-proofing" the powerful.
That is absolutely not the case. Weinstein has hardly been ‘guilt-proofed’ and nor should anyone with a clear history of assault. But the Kavanaugh case is far from clear, as an isolated incident where false perceptions are possible, backed by a Democrat horde baying for blood against Trump.
Harry Marks wrote: If the charges are not going to be taken seriously, with interviews of witnesses under oath, etc., and apparently they are not, that means a victim's concern for the public and the integrity of its officials counts for nothing next to the impunity of someone in the public eye.
The context here is that a short delay could remove Trump’s nomination power, with massive effect on American public policy. I don’t get the impression people think Ford should not be taken seriously, just that she should not be made an excuse for Democrats to game the system. This incident is very minor on the scale of crime even if proven, which it can’t be while Mark Judge sides with Kavanaugh. I see she will testify this week, although her camp is trying to stall the process.
Harry Marks wrote:
We all know that a lie works best when it is kept simple, short and just gets us by until the attention passes. The supposedly horrible prospect of a brazen liar manufacturing a lifetime of pretend trauma so that she could take down a possible public servant is not really all that credible. But it plays well to political partisans.
No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.
Harry Marks wrote:
"He didn't actually rape her" is not a standard for the Supreme Court. If someone had only pretended a lynching, or only sent a blackmail letter as a joke, it would still mean their character is on the wrong side of the law for one of its chief officers.
What looks most probable in this case, assuming the incident occurred as described which is still unproven, is that Kavanaugh fully believed that Ford was consenting and let her go as soon as she made clear she did not consent. It is perfectly understandable that her perception was different. Perpetrators with a pattern of such conduct are very different from someone who experiments once as a youth and immediately learns about appropriate boundaries.
Harry Marks wrote:He probably never did anything like that again. But that is not a reason to ignore it when choosing a Supreme Court Justice.
And nobody is suggesting anyone ignore it, since it has been front page news for several weeks. It is about weighing the evidence and forming an opinion. It is wrong to say that if you don’t like the decision you have been ignored.
Harry Marks wrote:this incident still puts him squarely on the side of privilege
and that is why Democrats hate him, as he is a primary target for the war on inequality, with this Ford case just the most convenient delaying tactic.
Harry Marks wrote:,
that public officials should choose denial and perjury rather than be judged publicly [is] more realistic, but it is less moral, and less committed to law.
Realism in politics is not a sin, when it means a capacity to weigh the moral worth of rival factors and likely reactions. To be ‘judged publicly’ in such a case is the equivalent of being lynched.