Source: HubPages
“People’s lives are being shattered and destroyed by mere allegations. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?” – President Donald Trump
While the President’s remarks triggered a great deal of controversy, the truth is questions are being raised about what “due process” those accused of sexual assault and misconduct are entitled to. There’s no doubt the #MeToo movement has not only given a voice but some power to once silenced and defenseless victims. The narratives behind the movement doesn’t just reveal the criminal behaviors of sexual misconduct, but it’s also shedding light to the traditional legal justice system that has repeatedly failed victims. The cries that were long ignored in the office of corporations are now being acknowledged by the court of public opinion on social media. After more than 100 men in high-profile positions have fallen from grace, and as more figures face consequences – one needs to ask, should we address the fact that there may be some error in this rush to judgment and accepting all accusations at face value?
First, we need to acknowledge that those who are calling for “due process” in the wake of the #MeToo era are misusing the term. It is a legal principle, a protection against arbitrary government action invoked only when the government acts. Due Process, as enshrined on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But corporations are not courts of law. Hollywood, Neflix, the “Today” show, and Fox News are not government entities. Due process does not apply to private employers or the press. And it most certainly doesn’t apply to the court of public opinion.
But if we’re speaking colloquially – yes, it’s true that an accusation is not itself proof. Many critics – even within the feminist movement – say the rapidity and fury of the #MeToo movement in upending the careers of men need to be addressed in order to achieve long-lasting social justice. In an Opinion piece to the Chicago Tribune, 77-year old Dorie Chaille Tiseth, who has been a member of the National Women and the American Association of University Women championing for women’s rights for 50 years, compared the #MeToo movement to the Salem witch hunt. She said, “For the sake of equality for women, we must demand that those accused can face their accusers or the fight for equality for women will become impotent.” In a separate article, Jeanine Tobine – a public defender and a self-proclaimed feminist in her 70s – agreed with Tiseth’s stand and stressed the need for a better way to redress sexual misconduct than throwing the concept of due process out the window: “As a retired public defender, I have seen more than my share of shaded motivations on both sides of sexual issues. I remember more than a few juries where criminal accusations by “girlfriends” against males were heard and defendants ultimately exonerated. Other juries have found defendants guilty.” She argues that “due process” is for the innocent and guilty alike – every accused individual deserves a trial before coming to a verdict of guilt or innocence.
However, I’m not entirely sure what “due process” would look like in our current circus atmosphere of media coverage. Because unlike the court room, non-legal charges as well as cases that are beyond the statute of limitations can get considerable time in the limelight. The media and the press isn’t a medium that can be censored due to a lack of facts or evidence. At the same time, some critics say that there should be more ethics practiced amongst journalists. Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut argues, “As I understand it, reputable journalists do attempt to hear the other side. They seek confirmation of their stories and solicit a response from the person accused.” But it’s important to note that it’s not just journalists that are reporting on the #MeToo movement. The Internet has created a media platform for any users to sound off and share their stories with a use of a #hashtag. However, this new wave on the Internet is different than previous waves because they have a medium to address criticism as it’s being addressed to them, offering an opportunity to expand feminist debates. Perhaps it’s time for feminists – with its generational and ideological differences – to use the digital space to start the conversation of “due process.” Because after all, it is a call that only belongs to them.
First, we need to acknowledge that those who are calling for “due process” in the wake of the #MeToo era are misusing the term. It is a legal principle, a protection against arbitrary government action invoked only when the government acts. Due Process, as enshrined on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But corporations are not courts of law. Hollywood, Neflix, the “Today” show, and Fox News are not government entities. Due process does not apply to private employers or the press. And it most certainly doesn’t apply to the court of public opinion.
But if we’re speaking colloquially – yes, it’s true that an accusation is not itself proof. Many critics – even within the feminist movement – say the rapidity and fury of the #MeToo movement in upending the careers of men need to be addressed in order to achieve long-lasting social justice. In an Opinion piece to the Chicago Tribune, 77-year old Dorie Chaille Tiseth, who has been a member of the National Women and the American Association of University Women championing for women’s rights for 50 years, compared the #MeToo movement to the Salem witch hunt. She said, “For the sake of equality for women, we must demand that those accused can face their accusers or the fight for equality for women will become impotent.” In a separate article, Jeanine Tobine – a public defender and a self-proclaimed feminist in her 70s – agreed with Tiseth’s stand and stressed the need for a better way to redress sexual misconduct than throwing the concept of due process out the window: “As a retired public defender, I have seen more than my share of shaded motivations on both sides of sexual issues. I remember more than a few juries where criminal accusations by “girlfriends” against males were heard and defendants ultimately exonerated. Other juries have found defendants guilty.” She argues that “due process” is for the innocent and guilty alike – every accused individual deserves a trial before coming to a verdict of guilt or innocence.
However, I’m not entirely sure what “due process” would look like in our current circus atmosphere of media coverage. Because unlike the court room, non-legal charges as well as cases that are beyond the statute of limitations can get considerable time in the limelight. The media and the press isn’t a medium that can be censored due to a lack of facts or evidence. At the same time, some critics say that there should be more ethics practiced amongst journalists. Alexandra Lahav, a law professor at the University of Connecticut argues, “As I understand it, reputable journalists do attempt to hear the other side. They seek confirmation of their stories and solicit a response from the person accused.” But it’s important to note that it’s not just journalists that are reporting on the #MeToo movement. The Internet has created a media platform for any users to sound off and share their stories with a use of a #hashtag. However, this new wave on the Internet is different than previous waves because they have a medium to address criticism as it’s being addressed to them, offering an opportunity to expand feminist debates. Perhaps it’s time for feminists – with its generational and ideological differences – to use the digital space to start the conversation of “due process.” Because after all, it is a call that only belongs to them.
RSS Feed