If Fairfax were accused of any crime but rape, would he be forced to resign with no investigation?
Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)
What if someone came forward and accused Gov. Northam of a hate crime in medical school, alleging that he picked him up in his car one night, took him to a field, tied a rope around his neck, threatened to lynch him and tormented him for hours with racial epithets and threats at gunpoint before dropping him off back in town and telling him he would kill him of he ever reported it. Northam said he did nothing of the kind but, instead he and the man went for a drive and sat out in a field drinking and talking before going their separate ways.
Would you assume, without more information that the accuser, a respected doctor, was telling the truth and that Northam must resign? If the statue of limitations had not yet run, would you want the accuser to press charges or would you say he didn't need to try to prosecute the crime but, instead, his word is enough because so much time had passed?
Rape is different than any other crime in its impact and trauma on the victim, so it must be treated differently in some respects. But must it be treated differently in ALL respects, particularly in terms of suspending all due process?
And should the fact that a crime has a unique impact on a victim - like a hate crime - change the due process rights of the person accused of committing it?
I say no.
I've seen people here insist that, although Dr. Tyson has publicly Lt. Gov. Fairfax of a crime, she has no responsibility for charging him but, instead, is well within her rights to simply make the public accusation and not go any further.
And some people are also saying that, now that the allegation has been made, Fairfax must bear all of the consequences he would have incurred had he actually been convicted of a crime short of being incarcerated and being legally declared a felon. He must relinquish his job, lose his political career and forever be stigmatized as a sexual predator and a criminal, without ever having an opportunity to defend himself or require his accuser to be held to her
proof, as other persons in this country who are accused of any other crime are entitled to do.
Sexual assault victims advocates have fought to change the way victims are viewed and treated in the judicial system and society. But they did not create a new and separate extra-judicial process for charging and punishing individuals for crimes without any opportunity to defend themselves.
I don't know whether Fairfax raped Tyson. And neither, at this point, does anyone else other than the two of them. We can try to weigh their credibility but, in truth, we don't know these people. Tyson could be as honest as the day is long. She could also be a stone-cold liar. Fairfax could be an honest young man who would never and has never harmed any woman. He could also be a rapist. I don't know and neither do you. Claiming we can judge the credibility of either of these people at this stage because of what they do for a living, how educated they are, or what we read about them is foolish.
But I do know it is wrong to assume an allegation, especially one as serious as rape, should be treated as a conviction is wrong. People may think it's justified in this case. But the next time, it could be YOUR husband or son or brother or friend who's accused and I am very sure you would not want them to be treated as Fairfax is.
= new reply since forum marked as read
and the conservative meme that kept popping up on my facebook feed during the Kavanaugh hearings:
Think of the innocent boys, your husand, son, brother, etc.
How many times, before #MeToo did you hear - think of the survivors - it could be your wife, your daughter, your sister? Not very often. It is only when rapists who have always been getting away with rape because women are perceived as inherently untrustworthy start to be held accountable that they, and their defenders, are desperately trying to claw back every inch that #MeToo and #WhyIDidNotReport gained.
Stop conflating a survivor's right to speak out about what she endured - or to remain silent - or any combination thereof - with how society, in a non-criminal contect, responds.
The survivor has an absolute right to speak out - or not - in whatever forum she chooses. If Fairfax believes he has been defamed, his remedies are to counter her statement - or to sue her for defamation. Both are likely to result in more survivors coming forward - but he is certainly free to pursue either remedy.
If he is impeached he will have the due process you are so concerned about. As Lt. Governor, he has the right to due process via an impeachment hearing before he is involuntarily removed from office.
Short of that you, and everyone else are free to take sides and suggest he should voluntarily resign - or not. Just as he is free to take your advice, or not. There are no due process rights associated with voluntarily resigning from your job. Period.
But NONE of this creates an obligation on the survivor of this brutal rape to pursue criminal charges, speak to journalists, etc. Once the rape ended, she has the absolute right to say, "No more. I am done. Having been raped does not mean being under control of the rapist (or others doing his bidding). Period,