Alabama GOP nominee Roy Moore is being urged to drop out of the Senate race due to numerous allegations of sexual harassment of minors throughout his career. While the Republican Party believes Roy Moore's actions are unacceptable, they also worry that he will damage the party's reputation and standing with voters for the 2018 mid-term elections. Moore has denied the allegations and is refusing to step down from the race despite strong opposing forces. Many believe that putting Jeff Sessions in as a write-in candidate is the best option to prevent Moore from joining the Senate, however he would have to leave his job in the Trump Administration to do so. The National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Cory Gardner stated that if Moore wins, the Senate should vote to expel him. However, expelling a senator is extremely rare and would require approval from 2/3 of the chamber. Many are looking to Donald Trump for answers as the Alabama Republican Party would withdraw Moore's name from the running if there were a White House order to do so, however Donald Trump has kept quiet on the situation and stated that if the allegations against Moore are true, he is confident he will step aside.
Questions:
1. Is it reasonable to require a candidate to step down if allegations have yet to be proven in the court?
2. Do you think the ideals that one is "innocent until proven guilty" and that a crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law are stopping people from taking this measure against Moore?
3. If Moore were convicted, he still would not be expelled without 2/3 approval. Is it moral to allow Senators to serve despite criminal charges? Do you think the type of charge should be taken into question?
3. If Moore were to be convicted, I think he should be required to step down from his seat. I think Congress members should be morally upright citizens and shouldn't under any circumstance keep their job if convicted of a crime because US citizens essentially rely on them and trust them for their good judgement. If they commit a crime, regardless of its severity, they are demonstrating a lack of judgement. Also, the president has a duty to be a 'chief citizen,' and this should apply to some extent to Congress members.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that looking at the criminal law system and how often some people who are tried are innocent it should be the way we have it today. With such, we need to be positive that someone is guilty if we sentience them to extensive prison time or even small for that matter. If the crime is not obvious there needs to be hard evidence because that can lead to issues with bias and other connotations. You have to think as if your in their shoes, the system was put in place to protect the innocent and most cases they actually pick correctly if someone is innocent or not.
ReplyDelete2. While principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" are helpful for the defendant, and help prevent emotional bias and mob mentality from entering the court room, it can also hinder justice being brought in certain cases. Instances such as the Simpson case, where the defense took advantage of such ideals to cast doubt on an otherwise air tight case against him, weigh heavily on a nations reputation and can communicate ineffeciency to other countries. While our crminal court system is attempting to minimize the human factor by having a impartial jury and relying on hard evidence, the system can still be manipulated or fail in cases where evidence may be scarce. In cases such as Moore's, arising with the #metoo movement, where assaults sometimes decades old are brought back up, hard evidence is hard to come by. More likely than not, as with many accusations of this type, the women are telling the truth but have little to stand on in the court of law other than word of others they have told. In this way, America's justice system has failed these women and many others in similar situations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAny congress member that is convicted for a crime should be required to step down. Allegations should not be taken lightly in congress, especially if they are proven. The politicians in congress are supposed to represent idealistic and law abiding citizens. When politicians begin to break the laws and get away with it the citizens will loose faith in their leaders. Congress members are role models and without a doubt should step down from power if they have been convicted for committing illegal acts.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that it should not necessarily be a requirement for people to step down when being questioned or investigated of a potential crime without a definitive conviction. I do believe, however, that they definitely should not be involved in a race or established position within Congress or any other branch for the matter while being investigated. I think that it should be one's moral duty or obligation to step down from their position while being investigated, not to concede their position forever or leave the government entirely, but to avoid disruption of the natural order of our government. Having a member of the House or Senate running for an important race or serving as a high ranking member on a committee who is under investigation jeopardizes the integrity and efficiency of that unit. It's also important to mention that the public's trust of that committee, party, caucus, or other facet of the government would likely be shattered all throughout the investigation and still remain damaged even if proven innocent. In conclusion, I feel as though members of the government should step down while under investigation. However, I view this as a moral obligation and not a government requirement.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that it is important for a candidate to step down if allegations are made against them. The allegations made against Roy Moore have not only been extremely disturbing, but they also bring negative publicity towards Congress, and ultimately take attention away from the positive impact that the Senate has on the United States.
ReplyDelete1. No, accusations are a far cry from convictions. I think the American legal system protects the defendant far more than in every other country, but I think this stems from the great value we have on personal liberty. From the traditional American perspective, it is better to have 100 criminals loose than 1 innocent man jailed, and I tend to agree with this. Therefore, we should reserve our judgement until a civil or criminal suit has been filed and decided on to make our judgement about people.
ReplyDelete1. This is a difficult position to be in for the GOP. On one hand, if Roy Moore were to be voted in, even if he was innocent, the sexual allegations in a post-Weinstein climate would be enough to taint the reputation of the Republican party. On the other hand, presumption of innocence has been a pillar of American tradition and fairness. John Mortimer, a great English Barrister, once called it the "golden thread" running through any progressive idea of justice.
ReplyDeleteIn the specific case of Roy Moore, however, although there hasn't been an official trial, evidence has been informally presented that he was acting in a very inappropriate manner towards several women. The next question is where we draw the line between forgivable and unforgivable actions.
2. No law can prevent people from having an opinion. Just because Moore has not been officially convicted in the court, does not mean he is guilty or not guilty. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the court can prevent people from taking their own measures against Moore. Regardless of whether the sexual assault claims are true, Moore's name has been tarnished because of the accusations against him. In reaction, many others have sided with the opinion that he is guilty proving how little power the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" have outside the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteIf Moore were to be convicted, he should be required to step down with or without being expelled. It is not moral to allow any members of Congress to serve despite criminal charges. Senators are American citizens and should be treated as such in the face of criminal charges. People in Congress represent the people, and representatives of the people should abide by the law like any citizen should and would. The type of charge should not be taken into question because the severity of the crime does not justify the fact that they broke the law. If you are representing the people who abide by the law and if you break the law, you should not be allowed or qualified to represent them.
ReplyDelete1) I think that it is unreasonable to have candidates step down if allegations have not been proven in a court of law. The American people have the right to elect whoever they want and seeing that there have been no criminal charges brought to Moore, he still has the ability to run for congress. Look at the 2016 election for example. Both Trump and Hillary were accused of breaking the law and not for a second did either of these candidates think about stepping down.
ReplyDelete1) As nasty as the allegations are, candidates should not have to step down when the accusations are yet to be proven. It is the decision of the American people if they want someone who is being tried for sexual harassment to be in the senate. Donald Trump has many allegations against him, yet he is still the president. If it had happened where Moore was elected, and then proven guilty, he obviously would have had to step down. Thankfully, we will not have to deal with that.
ReplyDelete1. I think it is completely reasonable to require a candidate to step down when they have been accused of sexual harassment. First, it would not work out well for them to be going into office while being tried for sexual harassment. Second, what would it say about the voters if someone accused of sexual harassment won office in government? Overall, it is completely reasonable to force them to drop out of the race.
ReplyDelete1. It is completely unreasonable to require candidates to step down if unproven allegations arise against them. If this was this case, literally anyone who wanted a different candidate to be elected could accuse someone who is running of sexual harassment. If they have been convicted, sure let them step down. Forcing a candidate to step down purely based on an allegation is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete1. I think its reasonable to expect Roy Moore to step down because of the allegations made against him. Although they are still "allegations" and he has not been proves guilty they are serious allegations that should not be taken lightly. It would be inappropriate to put a political figure that has been accused of sexual harassment into the senate because it is basically saying the the people of Alabama think that politicians are above the law and can do anything they want and get away with it. Even thought it did happen many years ago before his political career he shouldn't be able to avoid charges because of his status in the public.
ReplyDelete3. I think it is the obligation of our senators to impeach people convicted of felonies as severe as rape. Our senators are supposed to be model citizens and convicted felons should not be allowed in a place like congress. I would hope that the voters would vote against people like Roy Moore, even if it meant voting against the preferred party. I think that any felony, except for marijuana charges, should disqualify a person for running for public office.
ReplyDelete1. I think it is not reasonable for a candidate to step down when allegations against them are unproven. This would mean that people could attack other through false claims and be able to get away with it. However, if Moore were to be convicted then he would most definitely have to step down.
ReplyDelete