The Kavanaugh controversy

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë, I guess my question comes down to, can someone really be said to be attempting something if they're too drunk to know what they're doing?

Yes. Legally (and in my opinion morally), being drunk is no defense to committing a sexual assault. The alcohol doesn't make you do something like that (though it may remove inhibitions that would otherwise keep you from doing it). You still have to choose to do it.

Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer whose six month sentence for raping a woman who was unconscious caused national outrage (and ultimately caused the judge who imposed the sentence to be recalled), tried to blame his actions on being drunk. That was not a valid defense for him, and it wouldn't be for Kavanaugh (though of course the statute limitation has long passed for any potential criminal prosecution).

[yovargas]

IMO, the fact that it we're talking about the actions of a teenager are much more relevant than any inebriation.

[Primula Baggins]

That doesn't excuse it, either. The 15-year-old who committed the Thurston High School mass shooting here in 1998 (after murdering his parents the night before) was sentenced to, and is serving, a 125-year prison term.

[yovargas]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

[elengil]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

I would seriously question whether it was indeed a 'once in his teens' event or whether other women are simply not prepared to be eviscerated by coming forward. I would also question whether his past opinions reflect, in general, a harmful view towards women, even if his behavior has not necessarily been otherwise called into question. I would not convict a man based on that, but this isn't a trial, and a question of moral behavior may give pause to a confirmation which could easily be filled by another nominee who does not have such a question hanging over them.

[Frelga]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

I would be vehemently against him being a part of a tiny group that controls decisions crucial to health and survival of millions of women.

PS: ugh. I really don't have any impulse control. *sneaks out again*

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

If Dr. Ford is to be believed (and I have no reason not to believe her), Judge Kavanaugh's actions while a teen have affected her severely up to the present. This is serious stuff.

[River]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

Depends. Was there a show of remorse? An apology? Or is he convincing himself that nothing happened and if something did happen it's somehow okay, that she really secretly enjoyed it, that she was somehow asking for it, or <insert your favorite justification here>? Did he do it again to someone else? Errors in judgment are routine for teenagers. It's what comes after that makes the difference.

The assault on Dr. Ford was a bit more than a groping, BTW. She was afraid he was going to suffocate her.

ETA: I wonder what the conversation would look like if someone in Kavanaugh's situation were to stand up and say something like, "Yes. I went to a party and this person was there. I was really drunk and I don't remember all the details, but she was there and we did end up in a bedroom and I did attempt to have sex with her against her will. I deeply regret that evening. I never had the courage to talk about this or apologize to the girl, but I'm doing it now," and then followed the statement with a sincere apology. I know some wouldn't accept it. But what about everyone else?

[Cerin]

If you found that a 50-something year old man l aggressively, forcefully groped a girl once while in his teens, would you no longer trust that man's judgment or character?

If I found out he had been drunk at the time to the point of stumbling around, I would be less likely to attribute the action to an inherent character flaw, and thus less likely to consider his judgment or character permanently untrustworthy.

While I don't personally know anyone prone to drunkenness, there are examples of alcoholics in TV and literature, and a recurring theme of good people doing bad things because of the influence of alcohol or drugs, who become model citizens once they have stopped drinking/using. Maybe this is a fiction, I don't know.

[yovargas]

Errors in judgment are routine for teenagers. It's what comes after that makes the difference.

That's all I'm saying.

[Primula Baggins]

The difficulty is, Kavanaugh categorically denied the incident under oath. This is a problem.

[yovargas]

The difficulty is, Kavanaugh categorically denied the incident under oath. This is a problem.

If he had responded like River said in her statement, would that change things for you?

[River]

Errors in judgment are routine for teenagers. It's what comes after that makes the difference.

That's all I'm saying.

In Kavanaugh's case what's come after is a denial under oath that he was at that party. His schoolmate who was also involved in the assault is also denying any memory of the event and refusing to testify. Has either man expressed anything that looks like sympathy to the victim or are they just calling her a liar?

[Primula Baggins]

The difficulty is, Kavanaugh categorically denied the incident under oath. This is a problem.

If he had responded like River said in her statement, would that change things for you?

Well, then he wouldn't have lied to the Senate under oath, which is a much bigger problem for him right now (it's an impeachable offense) than what he actually did or didn't do in high school.

[Cerin]

In Kavanaugh's case what's come after is a denial under oath that he was at that party. His schoolmate who was also involved in the assault is also denying any memory of the event and refusing to testify. Has either man expressed anything that looks like sympathy to the victim or are they just calling her a liar?

At this point, it's an alleged assault. And that's all it's ever going to be unless some other people who were at that party come forward to support Ford's recollections. It might be possible to establish Kavanaugh's presence at the party, though; that's probably where inquiries should be focused, since that's all that would be needed to derail his nomination.

They're saying now that a hearing is not a sure thing, since Ford hasn't agreed to appear and there's no point in having a hearing on the matter without her.

[IdylleSeethes]

Cerin,

Thank you for being a voice of reason in this thread. Since none of us have any way to know what actually happened, that's about all that can fairly be said.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying
I think this is a reasonable request, but I doubt it will happen. As Cerin and Idylle both point out, as it stands right now it would be only her word against his. Why not get as much information as possible first? But the GOP from the beginning have tried to rush this nomination through. I don't see that stopping.

[River]

Apparently only Kavanaugh and Ford would be allowed to testify at Monday's hearing so I'm not sure how it would clear anything up. I'm also not sure if the FBI has any jurisdiction. Attempted rape isn't a federal crime. Shouldn't it be a matter for local law enforcement?

[Dave_LF]

I think there are two questions here that many commentators are conflating:
1) Should Brett Kavanaugh be prosecuted and (if convicted) thrown in jail over this?
2) Should Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination be derailed over this?

The problem is that many are using objections to question #1 to answer "no" to question #2 as well. When you're talking about depriving someone of a fundamental right such as liberty, the burden of proof is on the accuser, the standard of proof is very high, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But when you're talking about granting someone a privilege, especially a privilege as high as a lifelong position on the nation's highest court, the burden is on the candidate to show he deserves it. If Ford's testimony succeeds in creating doubt about Kavanaugh's character, I think the senators would be well within their rights to withdraw their support, even if no prosecutor would touch the case with a ten-foot pole.

[elengil]

Thank you. I was trying to make that distinction but I was having trouble laying it out so sussinctly.