At Bloomberg View Tyler Cowen makes six observations about the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings:
- Alcohol is an underrated factor.
- Americans don’t care enough about other problems.
- There is an asymmetry between male and female perceptions.
- Our criminal justice system isn’t very good.
- The Democrats are in a fog.
- This is how social change happens.
For explanations of what he is getting at without some of those, read the whole thing. I will only comment on the last. To believe that whatever “social change” results from the events of the last several weeks will be benign is to believe that all that matters is what 15% of the people say and what that same 15% do and what 30% of the people do and say are completely unimportant.
I think alcohol is a huge factor. We should all be grateful that use among teens has dropped from that peak in the 80s/90s. It caused, still does, so many problems. It seems to be central in all of the stories of the accusers and the accused in the Kavanaugh case. Probably why both sides can be so convinced they are both correct.
This is politics. The behaviors that may or may not have happened were already being addressed. This seems like a unique situation and don’t see it changing things much. Heck, we now have videos of police shooting unarmed people running away, or lying on the ground, and that hasn’t changed anything. We just don’t change that easily. Maybe it will become unacceptable to drop your pants and wave your dick at a party in some elite liberal arts colleges. In the rest of the country it will just be regarded as boys being boys.
Steve
Alcohol is a factor. Now there is a rare insight for you. Hey, hold my beer and watch this…… Alcohol abuse is rampant today, as always. The one big difference is the kids have the sense to call Uber. That’s a step in the right direction, but does not speak to overconsumption.
Asymmetry? That exists between any two random people, not just man and women.
Social change? Give me a break. This is how the Salem witch hunts occurred.
Tyler is usually better.
Looks like Rachel Mitchell was rather non-plussed by Ford. And I’m being charitable.
Jeff Flake says he wouldn’t have supported the week delay for the FBI investigation if he was running for reelection:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-flake-lindsey-graham-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation-inside-the-decision-to-delay-confirmation-hearing/
FUBAR. Factionalism is taking over and destroying our government.
On a legal point, Dave was right, I was wrong:
It appears that in 1982 assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors under Maryland law, and therefore subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/29/maryland-misdemeanor-law#comment
Volokh explains why Maryland law is unusual in labeling misdemeanors, but it may be simply important that the Montgomery County prosecutor believes this to be true.
Interesting on Me law. I would disagree a bit. Even if you could have penalties up to life in prison, if you have a one year statute of limitations that seems to really undercut the claim about being serious. Would like to see how long it normally takes to bring charges on those cases before being to critical.
Steve
Also of note, one of the Maryland court decisions cited by Volokh in turn cites a 1982 decision which reversed sexual offense convictions due to the defense of voluntary intoxication:
“Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence generated the issue of voluntary intoxication. We are therefore constrained to reverse appellant’s convictions of the two specific intent crimes — third degree sexual offense and attempted third degree sexual offense — because the trial court failed to give the requested instruction on voluntary intoxication, which point of law is supported by the evidence in the instant case.”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1372582502371174586&hl=en&as_sdt=400006
Basically, assault is a general intent crime, for which intoxication is no defense. But crimes involving an “attempt” or “intent” to do something specific are specific intent crimes, and intoxication could be used to challenge the mental state component.
@steve, under the common law, “attempt” was recognized as a crime, just like “arson” or “rape.” So it would be a categorical error to think of an attempted rape as a subspecies of rape. An “attempt” is a separate crime. It was considered a misdemeanor, most likely because an evil intent is considered to be less serious than an evil act. Also, “attempt” had its origins in the Star Chamber of Henry VIII, and most English jurists commented on this history and its abuses.