Precautionary principle may be the answer to Kavanaugh mess

The conundrum is this: an entirely believable accuser is unable to corroborate a sexual assault by Kavanaugh she says happened 36 years ago. An emotional, angry Kavanaugh passionately denies he did it, and says his good name has forever been tarnished.

I watched for several hours last week as this drama played out on TV, and I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

I don’t like Kavanaugh after watching his evasiveness and his smart-ass retorts to senators asking him questions.

But if this were a trial, Kavanaugh would be acquitted on lack of evidence.

So doesn’t the judge have a right to have his future decided on evidence rather than on what amounts to hearsay, no matter how convincing?

I think there’s more to it than that.

The lack of consistency in the process — the legal system versus the court of public opinion — is having terrible consequences for both accused and accusers.

Why is it that in the entertainment business, when an accusation is made, with a couple of notable exceptions due process barely gets a whiff as careers and lives are discarded? Politicians including the president, on the other hand, often get a free pass.

Then there’s Brett Kavanaugh. His case is unique, and resolvable.

The precautionary principle would suggest that, whether or not there’s proof of Dr. Ford’s allegation beyond her word, a credible accuser should be enough not to take a chance on a man who’s in line for one of the most prestigious and important jobs in his country.

In his case, but not in all, the determining factor should be whether Dr. Ford is believable. And she is.

I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.

by Armchair Mayor

Precautionary principle may be the answer to Kavanaugh mess

Our Community