While the Kavanaugh hearings are about a specific political battle, the accusation by Blasey raises important questions about moral accountability. The legal aspects, of course, are a matter for lawmakers and judges.
According to Blasey, she was sexually assaulted by a drunken Kavanaugh when she was 15 and he was 17. While it is evident that sexual assault is wrong, there is the question about the extent to which a 17-year-old attacker is morally accountable. As scientific research shows, the brains of teenagers are significantly different from adults in ways that would seem to make them less accountable for their actions. There is also the fact that children have less experience than adults and are learning how to operate as human beings within legal, social and moral norms. This is not to say that children are devoid of moral agency; it is just to point out the obvious: children are less morally accountable than adults, a fact which is generally enshrined in law.
Since the alleged incident involves sexual assault, it is relevant to bring up the matter of consent. As a general rule children lack the competence to consent and this provides part of the foundation for laws regarding statutory rape. If children lack the competence to consent, then one must consider whether they lack the competence to understand a refusal of consent. If the inability to given consent is based on an inability to understand the concept, then this would seem to also apply to understanding a lack of consent. This view would seem to have an awful entailment about sexual assaults conducted by children: since they cannot understand consent, they cannot be held morally accountable for acting without the consent of others. So, a 17-year-old who assaults a 15-year-old could use the excuse that children lack an understanding of consent, which seems monstrous.
This could be countered by arguing that while children do not understand the concept of consent enough to give consent, they do understand it enough to be accountable for acting against someone without consent. So, while a 15-year-old could not give consent to a 17-year-old, the 17-year-old is competent enough to understand that such acting without (or even with) consent would be harmful and hence wrong.
Another approach is to argue that it is not a matter of understanding. So, even if a child understood the concept of consent, they could still not give consent because they lack the other qualities needed to give consent. As such, children could understand consent and that acting without it is wrong, yet remain unable to give consent. This does raise the question of whether a person who cannot give consent would thus also have a moral status such that they could not violate consent. To use a legal analogy, a person who cannot legally enter a contract could also not be held accountable for breaking a contract. This, obviously enough, is problematic.
One approach is to insist, with righteous indignation, that while children cannot give consent, they can still act in ways that violate the consent they cannot give. So, while a 15-year-old cannot consent to a 17-year-old, if the 17-year-old assaults the 15-year-old, they are still morally accountable—even though the 17-year-old also lacks the moral status needed to grant consent. Since children still have some moral agency and can be expected to realize that it is wrong to assault other people, this makes sense. As such, while children cannot consent (perhaps even to other children), they (in general) would have sufficient moral agency to be accountable for sexual assault. Naturally, the moral (and legal) assessment should consider the impact of being a child has on a person’s decision making and, in general, a child should not be held to the same moral standards as an adult. This is not to say that the children should have a free pass on their misdeeds, simply that they should not be evaluated as adults. This does not, obviously enough, address the current accountability of an adult who engaged in sexual assault or other evil acts as a child. This will be addressed in an upcoming essay.
It seems like many of these politicians, several whom graduated form elite schools should take some of your logic 101 classes Mike, with a focus on logical fallacies. Take for instance Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from NY: “I believe her [Ford] because she’s telling the truth”.
Gillibrand is a graduate of Dartmouth college and received a law degree from UCLA.
Is this just part of post-truth politics or did Gillibrand roll this low on her Wisdom score in Dungeons and Dragons?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kirsten-gillibrand-believes-christine-blasey-fords-allegation-true/
…”This does not, obviously enough, address the current accountability of an adult who engaged in sexual assault or other evil acts as a child. “
I look forward to this essay.
I think you are correct, to a certain degree. I also think that the laws in this country offer some leeway in this regard, hence the concept of “trying someone as a juvenile” versus “trying someone as an adult”. While I’ve never been in that situation on either side, I am certain that there are circumstances that are considered in making that decision – circumstances having to do with maturity, history, attitude, and even the moral or judicial benefit of either.
In the case of a seventeen year old accused of this kind of act when he is seventeen, much can be determined by the circumstances under which it happened – was there a lot of drinking at the party? Was the accuser also drunk? Is it possible that she at first consented, then withdrew her consent? Other witnesses would be readily available, of course, and a substantial amount of weight would be given to the amount of damage an accusation like this might do to the future of both individuals.
I think that in a seventeen year old context, we can make certain judgement calls about “accountability”, but that does not mean there should be no punishment. If the “attacker” is indeed guilty, he should be held accountable – and if the accusation is specious or if the victim is not entirely innocent, then she needs to be punished also.
But – and as the law provides – they can be punished as juveniles so as not to ruin their lives before they even get a start. Court documents are sealed.
The Democrats are very slick in their approach to this. They are not trying to hold Kavanaugh accountable for something he is accused of having done as a juvenile. Too much time has passed, there is a HUGE lack of any kind of corroboration or detail – even Blasey’s memory is untustworthy. Nothing at all can ever be proven beyond a doubt. And since the burden of proof (legally) is on the accuser, they know they have a losing proposition. In a court of law, all the accused needs to do is provide plausible doubt.
No, the Democrats have this all figured out. They have already divided the country into those who believe Kavanaugh and those who believe Blasey. They know that in this day and age of tribal warfare, all they need to do is fuel the outrage to a boiling point, which is a very easy thing to do.
And just when the public is at maximum conviction in their own unfounded beliefs – the accusation is made – that Kavanaugh, as an ADULT, and as a JUDGE, is lying to the Senate and to the American people, and is therefore unfit to serve. It’s not some forgivable juvenile indiscretion that happened 35 years ago – it’s a LIE that happened TODAY.
There’s no judge here, no jury — no proof is necessary. It’s a vote – and Senators do not have to explain their votes.
Remember, this is politics. To those in the Senate making these decisions, it doesn’t matter what THEY think – it’s what their PARTY thinks – or perhaps more important, it’s what the VOTERS think. Imagine someone who is running for re-election addressing his constituents and saying, “Wait, wait, wait – I know you’re very passionate about this, but nothing was ever proven. Kavanaugh deserves the same treatment as any accused, and even though you THINK you know what happened, you don’t.”
Forget it. The enraged public will respond, “he’s LYING, Dammit! Throw the bum out! And if you support him, then YOU MUST BE A BUM TOO! Throw YOU out too!”.
Our leaders, as we have discussed elswhere on this forum, are feckless worms who stick their finger in the air to try to catch the breeze of voter sentiment, and will run quickly from whatever moral or ideological convictions they might have if it means they can secure more votes, or cut their losses.
And the Democrats, marching in lock-step, know this all to well, and from this derive their power.
One last point. This is not about Kavanaugh, it is not about the outrage of sexual assault, it’s not even about honesty before the Senate It’s an “old boys club” down there in DC, and everyone has secrets, and most of them know and protect each other’s secrets.
No, this is really about abortion. It’s about Trump. It’s about the war between the Left and the Right. It’s about Obamacare and the wall and the free market and about tribalism. And it’s about political enemies trying to destroy their rivals while protecting their own asses.
In looking at Kavanaugh’s life, his record, and the people who are willing to stand up for him, I would be willing to bet that he has led a cleaner life than anyone who sits in judgement of him, and probably cleaner than any of the other justices with whom he hopes to serve.
If we take the feminists at their word and there is no difference between women and men, the allegation should just be assault and not “sexual assault.”
If Kavanaugh was alleged to have beaten up a male student would anybody even care?
Moreover, would a male student complain about it on a national stage 36 years later?
No one would care unless he was complaining about a priest.
Well, yes, but going to your scenario of a 17 year old boy beating up a 15 year old boy, even though this is assault, the 15 year old boy, 36 years on, would not run to the Washington Post to tell on the other man whom was up for a national post.
The levels of dishonesty in this ordeal are astounding. Does anyone remember what boys AND girls did in high school? Yet the feminists and Democrats have turned their pearls into dust they’ve squeezed them so hard.
Isn’t all of this what “conservatives” have warned of for decades? It’s the logical conclusion to the mania, and stoking of emotions by elites. Trump is the “populist”? Compared to whom?
No, I can’t picture a man going to the WP to say another man beat him up when he was in 10th grade.
I called this yesterday. The Dems have found another woman to come forward, another Never-Trumper. The Republic is lost.
Well they’re desperate. I don’t think this Ford story was going to play out. I don’t think she thought that the degree of ridiculous demands that she was making and the quantity of such that the dopes in the GOP leadership would still meet them. The way I see it, she’s been riding the tiger here and looking for a way to jump off but her handlers and such kept telling her what they thought she wanted to hear, that they will push and fight for her, and the idiots in the GOP kept caving in, but she just wants out. I was beginning to worry (and I’m guessing someone, somewhere in the D leadership saw this…I can’t possibly be the only one thinking this) that she might take, or “attempt” to take, her own life at the last minute. Neither one would look good for them given the short timespan they would have left to spin it. I’m guessing that they have now talked some other woman into taking the heat in the short run, either knowingly or not, to “save” Ford’s life.
Now with this new story they get to start from square one and can kick the can down the road. No time to fully investigate. Delays things past at least the next SCOTUS session that starts Oct. 1 and hopefully past the election. By the time the dust clears it will be like Harry Reid and the tax evasion accusation against Romney that proved false. They’ve been playing this October Surprise game for decades. They’re just now starting to perfect it.
It’s odd that Kavanaugh never seems to have assaulted a conservative woman or a non-political activist. Weird.
The Ford thing was definitely not turning out. Her friend of years whom she said was at the party with her wrote a letter to Congress saying she was never at the party and has never even met Kavanaugh.
I wonder if this friend is circumspect enough to stop and think about her own political party after seeing the response, knowing herslef it’s all a lie.
As I understand it, and I’m running out of time and patience to verify every damn thing…so considering…, the woman is also both A) Fox ex-resident “blue-collar” democrat Bob Beckel’s ex-wife and B) still stands by whatever Ford said.
“…The Dems have found another woman to come forward, another Never-Trumper. The Republic is lost.
This has caused me a tremendous amount of anxiety this evening. I honestly don’t care so much about Kavanaugh, I thought he seemed like a decent guy and a pretty able jurist – but I’ve seen these confirmation hearings go both ways so many times in the past.
What has made me lose complete faith in this country, and given me a profound sadness, is that an allegation that is essentially a reversal of our system of justice – ie., “presumption of guilt” instead of the other way around, can have such an effect on a man’s life and this country’s future.
We are headed for a dictatorship that merely masquerades as a republic – those in power will stop at nothing to instill fear in the opposition, and anyone who crosses the line risks complete personal and professional destruction.
The founding of this country has often been referred to as “an experiment”, and now we know the outcome.
Someone already did… Remember Mitt Romney, high school bully?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/bulle/2012/05/romney_s_bullying_how_bad_was_the_vicious_incident_reported_by_the_washington_post_.html
In any case, after this the #MeToo movement will be effectively dead.
I was sexually assaulted by several teenage girls begging in junior high, and continuing though high school. True story. But I’m waiting to tell my story until one of them gets a decent job.