The President calls it “bomb” stuff, Facebook posters
on both left and right claim it was all a CIA/FBI /Democratic hoax to boost Democratic
candidates in the upcoming election.
Even after the NYPD and the FBI director announced these were “live
devices” and “not hoax bombs,” people still disbelieved. This crisis reflects a pattern that cuts
across much of our cultural and religious life.
It’s
now a cliché to say we live in divided times. Whether in our church are
in our culture, too often we face three unhappy choices: we can talk only with
those who agree with us, we can ridicule those who disagree with us, or we
cannot talk at all.
This
is not merely because people are at odds about what values to follow. It is more basic than that: people are even
at odds about the facts-what is true or false, what is real or not.
This
is most troublesome facing matters that require action, such as accusations of
wrongdoing. When someone accuses someone
else of wrongdoing, there must be some response--but our actions will depend on
the facts of the case. If we cannot
agree on those facts, the result can be paralysis--nothing happens. The risk:
even real and serious wrongdoing goes unchecked.
Currently
were being flooded with such allegations about wrongdoing: workplace sexual
harassment, sex abuse and cover up by priests and bishops in Pennsylvania and
other states, allegations of assault by Brett Kavanaugh, indictments of various
public figures in the Mueller investigation, new cases of sex abuse against
priests and bishops in Australia and France, allegations of murder aimed at the
Saudi government, allegations of attempted bomb attacks against public figures,
allegations that Elizabeth Warren committed fraud about her family heritage,
allegations that Pope Francis dropped sanctions against an abusive Cardinal.
Too
often people fail to agree on the facts about such allegations because they
impose their own preconceptions on the case.
People approach cases from opposite angles, disagree before they even
view the facts, and end up unable to establish a common view of what the facts
are. And we get paralysis.
Let
me suggest this: we need a fair and neutral way to respond to allegations--a
set of standards we agree on an advance and apply to each case. This is the only way to prevent contaminating
each case with our own preconceptions.
Example: in Catholic sex abuse cases, disciplining action and punishment
has been taken against “credibly accused” priests. But what makes an accusation credible? What does it take to justify punishing the
accused?
Most
people know that we already have such a clear standard in the U.S. criminal
justice system: “innocent until proven guilty.”
And many of us know the standard for civil cases: “the preponderance of
evidence.”
But
these standards do not fit most of the allegations I listed above. The Saudi murders and the bomb threats may
come to criminal trial, but the others will not, and many allegations
concerning priestly abuse and many “#MeToo” allegations are too old even for
civil suits due to statutes of limitations.
Moreover, allegations of personal (especially sexual) assault may not
produce either witnesses or physical evidence.
In a
word, many allegations cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet they
still require a response. So again this
question: what is a “credible allegation,” one we believe is true even when we
cannot prove it is true?
Clearly
we cannot accept being caught between two extremes: either (1) the allegations
are “proven” or (2) the result is nothing. We need more--and better--options.
A
practical example: many states list people of various professions (teachers,
health workers, social workers, etc.) As “mandated reporters” who must notify
the authorities of any allegation. But
then the authorities must somehow act, even if no witnesses or physical
evidence exists.
Common
sense tells us what questions need to be asked about any such allegation:
--Who
is making it?
--Are
they a reliable source?
--Do
they have any motive to accuse falsely?
--Can
they offer corroborating evidence or witnesses?
In
other words, the credible allegation begins when accusations are made by a credible
person! But that does not end the case,
since there may be unanswered questions about witnesses and evidence: Who are
the witnesses? What is the evidence if
any? Does the accused have an
alibi? Are there contrary witnesses or
evidence? Is there a pattern of similar
independent accusations against this person?
I
recall, for example, talking with someone skeptical of the priestly abuse
allegations. He simply did not believe
it was happening. But then I offered
testimony I had received from several different people accusing the same priest
of similar behavior even though these people did not even know each other and
were from different parishes. Clearly
such independent accusations could not be simply false coincidences.
I
suggest that, while not all allegations can lead to civil or criminal court,
and while “presumed until innocent” cannot apply to all cases, still we can
follow two clear standards. First, is
the accuser credible? If not, the case
may end there. Second, if the accuser is credible, then the case has to be thoroughly
investigated by the relevant authorities.
There
is room for disagreement about these points.
Was Dr. Blasey Ford a credible accuser?
Was the Kavanaugh investigation thorough? In priestly abuse cases, is
the relevant authority the church, the state, or both? In the Saudi murder, should we settle for the
Saudi investigation? A Turkish investigation? A U.S. investigation? A NATO/U.N.
investigation? All of the above?
But
those disagreements are about the process to follow and the judgment we make
about the accuser. Can preconceptions
color such process and judgment? Yes
indeed--but that is still better than jumping to conclusions before any
examination of the accuser or any investigation of the facts.
I’m
afraid Americans today do not enjoy that kind of clarity about how to deal with
such accusations. They call for “innocent until proven guilty” where it does
not belong. They dismiss accusers
without even hearing the testimony—or accept their accusations without questioning
them. They ignore patterns that would
help judge the credibility of allegations.
And they reach conclusions even before investigations are complete--or
even without any investigation at all!
If
we want any chance of social solidarity, if we want any hope of resolving
conflicts in a way that serves the common good, we will need to do better.
We
will need a willingness to suspend judgment, to respect credible testimony, and
to insist on thorough investigations that we do not prejudge.
None
of this is as easy as covering any case with preconceptions. But we will all benefit by choosing the harder
way--the right way.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2018
