- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,439
- 24,106
- 2,290
This situation highlights our basic choice as a society. We can have A or B, but not both:
A. The Rule of Law
B. The Outrage of the Mob
Throughout all of human history, we've had both, to varying extents.
Public opinion and law are separate, but far from mutually exclusive.
Oh, there certainly are mobs without a society that practices the Rule of Law, but if a person's guilt or innocence is decided by B, there is no A at all.
Not even sure what you are implying here.
What law applies here?
3 out of the 5 women who have talked about their experiences with Moore do not allege any illegal sexual activity.
2 have alleged improper sexual activity- but the statute of limitations has already long expired so there is no 'law' to apply.
So do we then not look at the evidence ourselves and decide ourselves what seems credible?
Do you presume that Cosby is innocent? That Weinstein is innocent? Do you presume that OJ didn't kill Nichole Simpson?
I'm talking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Cosby had a trial and we were able to learn about the evidence given under oath. There is real evidence about Weinstein (the police tapes from the Italian actress). OJ had a trial, with evidence presented under oath. I've seen enough regarding all three to be convinced of their guilt.
All we have regarding Moore is partisan reporting, Gloria's circus, and Moore's denial. No investigation has occurred. No due process has been followed. I find it quite premature to pass judgement on him, and will resist the outrage of the mob of howling monkeys.