Men are no more at risk now than before 

Posted by:

President Donald Trump warns that the Senate confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh indicates that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America.” Fox journalist Jeanine Pirro believes the left is setting a new standard—“You are guilty until proven innocent”—and that due process, probable cause and reasonable doubt no longer have any meaning.

Let’s drop the hyperbole and recognize that the Kavanaugh hearing, while ugly, was, in essence, a job interview on a national scale.

What should have been a dignified process denigrated into a fight because the people doing the hiring couldn’t agree on what mattered more. Thrilled with Kavanaugh’s conservative record, Republicans were unconcerned about the allegations made against him, and Democrats acted like juveniles to prevent another conservative from being seated on the high court.

Sounding an alarm about due process and probable cause being thrown out the window only adds to the acrimony. Those concepts still matter—but at trial.

Job interviews aren’t bound by what can be proven. If an employer doesn’t feel good about how a candidate interviews, even if those concerns aren’t substantiated, he doesn’t get the job. The only way for Republicans to steer around the questions concerning Kavanaugh’s background was to conflate the confirmation process with a trial. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty, they argued, and there’s no corroborating evidence. Except it wasn’t a trial.

More disturbing is the alarm voiced by columnist Jay Ambrose who warns that men are now at greater risk because the potential for baseless allegations has increased. Evidence is no longer needed to be found guilty of sexual abuse. All that is required these days is for a #MeToo feminist to say the victim is a victim.

Ambrose cites the story of Gregory Counts and VanDyke Perry, who, between them, were wrongfully incarcerated in New York for 36 years for a rape they did not commit.

A horrible blunder, but it happened in 1991, well before #MeToo came along.

The problem with stories like this is not so much about women conjuring up stories—the basis for Counts and Perry being wrongfully convicted—but more about our judicial system being fallible. Wrongful convictions happen more than most would think.

A few years back, I met six men—Ricky Jackson, Kwanme Ajamu, Wiley Bridgeman, Joe D’Ambrosio, Derrick Jamison and Dale Johnston—who had spent a combined 173 years incarcerated in Ohio—some on Death Row—for murders they did not commit before their convictions were overturned.

Samuel R. Gross of the University of Michigan Law School, Barbara O’Brien of the Michigan State University College of Law and two research professionals estimated in a study published in 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences that 4.1 percent of all death-sentenced defendants are wrongly convicted.

With all things human, there will always be error, including trials.

Wrongful convictions happen because of eyewitness misidentification, unreliable forensic science, false confessions, government misconduct, snitches who lie, judicial error and bad lawyering.

Here’s the point: for all these shortcomings, we don’t stop prosecuting murder cases, and there’s no reason to even think about backing down on holding men accountable for sexual abuse. Instead, let’s always work on improving the system.

Ambrose is worried the #MeToo movement will devolve into zealotry which, he fears, can lead to “different kinds of abuses, societal unfairness, indecency, to a guillotine that may not literally cut off heads but can cut off fundamental human rights” for men. Haven’t women suffered these same injustices for years?

The world is no more dangerous for men today than it was 50 years ago. Only womanizers need fear the #MeToo movement.

If a man drinks in moderation, is mindful of the company he keeps and avoids questionable situations, his risk of being unfairly accused of sexual abuse is no worse than the risk any man faces of being wrongfully accused of any crime. Maybe some men simply don’t like the idea of being held accountable.

[This post was published in the Columbus Dispatch on Oct. 17, 2018.]

_________________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

_____________________________________________________

 



Also published on Medium.

9
  Related Posts

Comments

  1. Jim Pucci  October 21, 2018

    Bill Clinton claimed to be a “boy” when he smoked dope at 18 or 19. For one, the 80’s were not the 2000’s and Kavanaugh was, by the keepers of gun statistics, and Bill Clinton, a boy when the alleged allegations occurred, correct?

    In addition, when the FBI does background checks they are looking for things for which you could be blackmailed. I find it hard to believe they never came across anything like the Ford allegations in their 6 investigations prior to his nomination.

    If you do not believe Ambrose you haven’t worked in corporate America for the last 25 years and seen the evolution, Employers are terrified to give an accused the benefit of the doubt. And it’s not just men. I know of cases where women were accused of inappropriate “touching” with other women and were immediately terminated.

    The culture has changed. In my opinion, It’s crossed the point of being better. It admittedly needed to be changed, but it has gone too far.

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  October 22, 2018

      I don’t have the same corporate experience as you, Jim, and maybe employers are taking a hard line. Does that mean we shouldn’t be taking a close look at sexual assault allegations? Seems to me, the point is that we need to be careful and thoughtful in our analysis of the facts.

      reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  November 4, 2018

      I can’t speak to how corporations handle allegations of sexual abuse, so let’s assume what you say is accurate. I have two responses. First, you say that corporations “are terrified to give an accused the benefit of the doubt.” I don’t know if anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, which leads to my second comment. Then, what’s the answer? Do we disregard the allegations? That’s what we’ve done for years, which is wholly unfair and disrespectful to women.Do we immediately assume the worst for the accused? That doesn’t make sense either. These situations require, I think, that everyone involved does what is necessary to get as close to the truth of possible. Sure, that’s asking a lot, but that’s what we should be doing.

      reply
  2. robin  October 22, 2018

    Jack:

    The last paragraph in your blog sums it up rather well. If we choose not to play with fire, it is highly unlikely we will get burned.

    Robin

    reply
  3. Dave H  October 23, 2018

    Jack, you’ve got to be kidding me. You fail to recognize the impetus and reality of the hate thrown against any nominated individual (and by implication, Trump), even before the respected judge’s name was put forth as the nominee. Give me a break!

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  October 23, 2018

      You’re focusing on the Kavanaugh hearing, and I’m not going to disagree about how badly both parties acted. My blog post was about the bigger picture of whether men are at greater risk today for spurious allegations. Two different subjects, I think.

      reply
  4. Mary  October 25, 2018

    Thanks for summing up what is and was for all of us, men and women. The good news is that until Kavanaugh, I ignored how critical judges really are to our check and balance democracy. This time, instead of skipping the voting for judges, I looked them up at JudicialVotesCount.org. I value the judges and pray we have lots of great ones.

    reply
  5. Kevin Bauman  October 29, 2018

    I would imagine it’s somewhat rare that a man is falsely accused by a female acquaintance with a score to settle, but it does happen. If the byproduct of the #MeToo movement (or the Kavanaugh outrage) is that any unproven accusation is more likely to be considered a fact (by employers or whoever), then it will present a greater risk of an unjust result. (Yea, I know, it’s a pretty weak argument and people are overreacting to this risk.)

    But Jim Pucci is correct that “employers are terrified to give an accused the benefit of the doubt.”

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  November 4, 2018

      Kevin, see my reply to Jim’s comment.

      reply

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published and your last name is optional.