Why We Shouldn’t Convict Roy Moore In The Court Of Public Opinion Just Yet

Like a lot of Americans, I have an opinion on whether I think Roy Moore is guilty. Writing at The Federalist, Jenna Ellis raises the most important point in my opinion:

A bare claim should be insufficient to convict a person outright, even in the court of public opinion. There should still be a presumption of innocence and a demand for veracity and proof.

If true. These are the two most important words that aren’t appearing anywhere amid the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore, the Republican former judge running in the December special election for the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Last Thursday, an allegation—a statement unsupported by additional evidence or proof—surfaced in a Washington Post article claiming that Moore, as a 32-year-old adult, had a relationship with a 14-year-old girl almost 40 years ago in 1979. Since then, a new allegation has also been leveled, accusing Moore of attempted rape. Seven women now accuse Moore of sexual misconduct decades ago, three for dating relationships in their late teens.

If true, no one on either side should defend such conduct as morally or legally permissible. But those important words aren’t appearing anywhere in any context over the past week, and I have been sayinglong before the Moore story broke that due process matters amidst any allegation, even in the court of public opinion.

Yet the mainstream media has since gone nuts, with pundits and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum calling for him step down from his Senate race, apparently believing the allegations immediately. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has led the call to rescind endorsements, saying, “I believe the women,” and Sen. Corey Gardner (R-CO), chair of the National Republican Senate Committee, said in a statement that the allegations “prove” Moore is unfit for office.

Read more: The Federalist

Image credit: www.thefederalist.com.