4 ms·

Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. I don't know w

Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. I don't know what actually happened, but it's dangerous to ever let go of that legal right.

pjc50 9y ago
Do you apply that standard to every allegation in an election?
rayiner 9y ago
> Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. A court determination isn't possible in the Moore case. In Alabama, the statute of limitations for a civil claim of sexual abuse of a minor is just years past the victim's 19th birthday. Roy Moore could still in theory still be prosecuted criminally because one of the victims was under 16 and the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor is unlimited, but really there is no chance of that. But just because allegations don't rise to the level of imprisoning someone doesn't mean that's the end of it. Reputations typically are mediated by non-legal means. If someone writes a blog post: "don't invest with <X> he ripped me off," nobody demands to see the civil judgment for fraud.
- adfskjldsjfk 9y ago
  Remember the Clintons got away with it every time?
  - techsupporter 9y ago
    Good (allegedly) for them. The whataboutism is getting super annoying. Neither Clinton is running for public office and the last one who did so wound up losing. If you want to have "Clinton is unworthy of receiving my vote / being elected to this office" as a debate, go for it once it matters. The topic of debate is whether the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Alabama, Roy Moore, meets the public's reasons for being elected. That he is alleged--by multiple people, all of whom have very low incentive to lie have credible-sounding stores--to have committed sexual assault on several minors is a factor in that decision, whether or not he is actually convicted because there's a difference between legally convicted and what the world thinks of you (otherwise people wouldn't care about if you "were ever arrested" on job applications).
    - rayiner 9y ago
      I think OP’s point may have been that Clinton was never convicted, but that doesn’t mean his reputation shouldn’t suffer as a result of the credible allegations.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        He’s one of a small club of presidents who was impeached, and whose agenda was completely upended. History won’t treat him well.
        MBCook 9y ago
        It was also ~20 years ago when we (sadly) didn’t treat things nearly as seriously. On The Media has a nice piece on exactly this topic over the weekend.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    If impeachment counts as getting away with it
    - briandear 9y ago
      Of course it does -- because the Senate didn't convict. So the impeachment was about as meaningful as getting arrested then getting the case dismissed.
      - nerfhammer 9y ago
        If he were literally arrested and the case being eventually dismissed would actually be pretty similar. He might prefer a definition of "getting away with it" as hardly anyone knowing or believing it and maybe not involving getting impeached over it and that becoming probably the most memorable thing about his presidency. He partly got away with it but he partly very definitely did not get away with it.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Yes, but you have people who say they believe the allegations but are inclined to vote for him anyway because of their ideology.
cortesoft 9y ago
So are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is showing that someone is guilty, you should NEVER use that information to help guide your vote decision unless that person has been convicted by a court of law? That is just silly, and you can easily see why with just a little bit of thought. Almost everything you use in determining who to vote for in an election has not been adjudicated in a court of law, but you still use it to form your opinion of who should be elected. There is a difference between the courts not sentencing you for a crime until you are convicted and a voter using accusations against a candidate to inform their vote.

pjc50 9y ago

Do you apply that standard to every allegation in an election?

rayiner 9y ago

> Allegations of sexual misconduct and an actual conviction are two very different things, though modern society tends to treat them as equivalent. A court determination isn't possible in the Moore case. In Alabama, the statute of limitations for a civil claim of sexual abuse of a minor is just years past the victim's 19th birthday. Roy Moore could still in theory still be prosecuted criminally because one of the victims was under 16 and the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor is unlimited, but really there is no chance of that. But just because allegations don't rise to the level of imprisoning someone doesn't mean that's the end of it. Reputations typically are mediated by non-legal means. If someone writes a blog post: "don't invest with <X> he ripped me off," nobody demands to see the civil judgment for fraud.

adfskjldsjfk 9y ago
Remember the Clintons got away with it every time?
- techsupporter 9y ago
  Good (allegedly) for them. The whataboutism is getting super annoying. Neither Clinton is running for public office and the last one who did so wound up losing. If you want to have "Clinton is unworthy of receiving my vote / being elected to this office" as a debate, go for it once it matters. The topic of debate is whether the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from Alabama, Roy Moore, meets the public's reasons for being elected. That he is alleged--by multiple people, all of whom have very low incentive to lie have credible-sounding stores--to have committed sexual assault on several minors is a factor in that decision, whether or not he is actually convicted because there's a difference between legally convicted and what the world thinks of you (otherwise people wouldn't care about if you "were ever arrested" on job applications).
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I think OP’s point may have been that Clinton was never convicted, but that doesn’t mean his reputation shouldn’t suffer as a result of the credible allegations.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      He’s one of a small club of presidents who was impeached, and whose agenda was completely upended. History won’t treat him well.
      - MBCook 9y ago
        It was also ~20 years ago when we (sadly) didn’t treat things nearly as seriously. On The Media has a nice piece on exactly this topic over the weekend.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  If impeachment counts as getting away with it
  - briandear 9y ago
    Of course it does -- because the Senate didn't convict. So the impeachment was about as meaningful as getting arrested then getting the case dismissed.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      If he were literally arrested and the case being eventually dismissed would actually be pretty similar. He might prefer a definition of "getting away with it" as hardly anyone knowing or believing it and maybe not involving getting impeached over it and that becoming probably the most memorable thing about his presidency. He partly got away with it but he partly very definitely did not get away with it.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Yes, but you have people who say they believe the allegations but are inclined to vote for him anyway because of their ideology.

cortesoft 9y ago

So are you saying that no matter how much evidence there is showing that someone is guilty, you should NEVER use that information to help guide your vote decision unless that person has been convicted by a court of law? That is just silly, and you can easily see why with just a little bit of thought. Almost everything you use in determining who to vote for in an election has not been adjudicated in a court of law, but you still use it to form your opinion of who should be elected. There is a difference between the courts not sentencing you for a crime until you are convicted and a voter using accusations against a candidate to inform their vote.