I agree that starting the formal criminal charging process requires a woman to review the moment over and over again. The cops, after all, don't know because they weren't there and they MUST get the story right to bring it to the district attorney who will have to prosecute the case. The DA will have to decide whether the complaint is well founded and that means reviewing complainant testimony to determine credibility. If no one will support the story as a witness, then the concept of "equality before the law" WILL require acknowledgment of a "he-said, she-said" situation where there will be no clear answer and the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" will kick in. Then, if the case moves forward, the story has to go before the judge and jury. So yes, the woman has to relive the experience many times.
Is this fair to the woman? Believe it or not, that question is immaterial in isolation. The more important question must be "Is it fair to all concerned parties?" As Bee points out, false accusations can turn lives upside down in a heartbeat. A friend of mine and I had a debate on this once. One of the things on which we agreed is that if you are going to bring down the power and majesty of your government to impair the rights and freedom of an individual, you owe it to that person (and all others in the same situation) to dot every "i" and cross every "t" in that process. It is not fair to the accused to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of false imprisonment. It is not fair to the VICTIM to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of letting a perpetrator go free. If you don't follow procedure, you effectively "screwed the pooch." (It's another thread, but witness the O.J. trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. DEFINITELY screwed that pooch.)
According to many therapists (and I've had a couple myself), reliving the moment might bring it painfully into focus but it is also a type of therapy because you can bring it into an analytical context and thus gain some control over it. As you see it for what it really was, you can make the feelings diminish with each retelling. You can take the blame from yourself and assign it where it belongs. At least, that's how my traumatic childhood moments were approached, and the result allowed me to put the past behind me. That's the only personal experience I have with this concept, so I cannot think about it in any other way than through my own experiences.
But this is still a binary decision. Either you file charges or you do not. (Quoth Yoda: "There is no try... there is DO or NOT DO.")
Public allegations that are not backed up by formal charges are grounds for "Defamation of Character" lawsuits. The legal system doesn't CARE about anything except whether a criminal act has been charged because that is a requirement of the "Due Process" concept. An end-run around the entire process to smear Brett Kavanaugh denies HIM of his rights and gives HIM counter-options for denial of HIS rights of due process.
AI: "Please consider that and see if your opinion changes."
I did. It didn't. With no disrespect intended to any woman who thinks of herself as a victim, the solution is to speak up immediately. There can be no closure without action. There will be no peace in her psyche without closure. Sitting there alone in darkness, reliving the event and fearing the memory, is a form of self-torture that is undeserved. Silence is the wrong answer.
Bee: "So many men have been falsely accused"
This is exactly the point. I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford is lying. I am saying that by failing to follow up at the time and by waiting silently until the expiration of the statute of limitations, she forfeited the right to publicly accuse Mr. Kavanaugh of something of such a devastating nature.
One thing on which I think we might agree is that the #MeToo movement might encourage a change in viewpoint for future generations who will face the traumatic experience differently. They will be quicker to call someone down for wrongdoing of this type. That would be a good result. But to use it as an excuse for public defamation of character on something that was inherently an uncharged criminal action? That's TWO "wrongs" which - as we know - does not make a "right."
Is this fair to the woman? Believe it or not, that question is immaterial in isolation. The more important question must be "Is it fair to all concerned parties?" As Bee points out, false accusations can turn lives upside down in a heartbeat. A friend of mine and I had a debate on this once. One of the things on which we agreed is that if you are going to bring down the power and majesty of your government to impair the rights and freedom of an individual, you owe it to that person (and all others in the same situation) to dot every "i" and cross every "t" in that process. It is not fair to the accused to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of false imprisonment. It is not fair to the VICTIM to be sloppy in prosecuting the case for fear of letting a perpetrator go free. If you don't follow procedure, you effectively "screwed the pooch." (It's another thread, but witness the O.J. trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. DEFINITELY screwed that pooch.)
According to many therapists (and I've had a couple myself), reliving the moment might bring it painfully into focus but it is also a type of therapy because you can bring it into an analytical context and thus gain some control over it. As you see it for what it really was, you can make the feelings diminish with each retelling. You can take the blame from yourself and assign it where it belongs. At least, that's how my traumatic childhood moments were approached, and the result allowed me to put the past behind me. That's the only personal experience I have with this concept, so I cannot think about it in any other way than through my own experiences.
But this is still a binary decision. Either you file charges or you do not. (Quoth Yoda: "There is no try... there is DO or NOT DO.")
Public allegations that are not backed up by formal charges are grounds for "Defamation of Character" lawsuits. The legal system doesn't CARE about anything except whether a criminal act has been charged because that is a requirement of the "Due Process" concept. An end-run around the entire process to smear Brett Kavanaugh denies HIM of his rights and gives HIM counter-options for denial of HIS rights of due process.
AI: "Please consider that and see if your opinion changes."
I did. It didn't. With no disrespect intended to any woman who thinks of herself as a victim, the solution is to speak up immediately. There can be no closure without action. There will be no peace in her psyche without closure. Sitting there alone in darkness, reliving the event and fearing the memory, is a form of self-torture that is undeserved. Silence is the wrong answer.
Bee: "So many men have been falsely accused"
This is exactly the point. I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford is lying. I am saying that by failing to follow up at the time and by waiting silently until the expiration of the statute of limitations, she forfeited the right to publicly accuse Mr. Kavanaugh of something of such a devastating nature.
One thing on which I think we might agree is that the #MeToo movement might encourage a change in viewpoint for future generations who will face the traumatic experience differently. They will be quicker to call someone down for wrongdoing of this type. That would be a good result. But to use it as an excuse for public defamation of character on something that was inherently an uncharged criminal action? That's TWO "wrongs" which - as we know - does not make a "right."
