So, a man accused of sexual assault and harassment of multiple women has been appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Nominated – it can also be said – by the President of the United States of America Donald Trump, who is himself accused of sexual harassment by several women.

An allegation of course is not proof, and should not be taken as such – however for as long as the matter remains uninvestigated and for as long as any charges are not prosecuted – it will remain.  What is the most striking in all of this to me then, is that the allegations against both of these men are not actively being investigated…

Yes, an additional and limited investigation was ordered by Donald Trump last week concerning Brett Kavanaugh, however given that this ‘investigation’ did not include interviewing either the accuser or the accused, and nor did it include taking evidence from or interviewing many of the corroborating witnesses, it is unclear exactly what was being investigated.

Much has been made by both Brett Kavanaugh and those who seek to defend him of the impact that such a public accusation has had and could continue to have on himself and those around him: “This has destroyed my family and my good name,” Kavanaugh said in his statement to the committee.  It is entirely likely that there are some who will believe Kavanaugh to be guilty of this allegation, even in the absence of any additional evidence – and thus it is all to easy to see how such a public accusation could well impact his life and the lives of his family.

It is equally likely however, that the same be true for his accuser – who may find that there are those that believe her to be lying come what may – she has already received death threats for what many believe to be a politically motivated accusation.

The result then, is a situation in which we have an accuser (public) with a disrupted life and reputation, and an accused (public) with a disrupted life and reputation.  Neither is fully vindicated and thus none can legitimately clear their name.  In which case – where is the justice (pun intended)?

In the light of the level and scope of the outrage from all sides in this instance, it seems clear that public accusations of this type can be very harmful -and opens all parties up to criticism and attack.  The testimony from Brett Kavanaugh has certainly been attacked – his questionable statements concerning his drinking habits, and his ridiculous lies about his year book statements have been countered by many, including those who were at college with him during the time of the alleged incident.   Similarly, Dr Blasey Ford has been accused of being part of a political plot and not being a reliable witness through many including comments from the President himself.

Is it fair then to publicly accuse someone and allow opinion to be changed about them before judgement is cast?  No, I do’t think so.  Nor is it fair to allow an accusation to be made and have it not investigated.  Innocent until proven guilty means giving someone the benefit of the doubt – which works for both the accuser and the accused.  Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be considered innocent yes, but Dr. Blasey Ford should also be considered to be telling the truth unless proved otherwise.

How then should this be resolved?  On the one hand unfounded allegations can cause a great deal of harm, and on the other not allowing such allegations can cause a great deal of harm.  Oh, if only there were a way through this thorny issue…

Oh wait – there is!!  INVESTIGATE!

The decision of the Senate Justice Committee to recommend that a limited investigation take place is certainly a positive step – yet I would question why such a matter is even down to them.  The only way that both accusers and accused can hope to receive justice of any kind is in a society where ALL accusations are investigated fully at all times.

In a system where decisions – political or otherwise – can be taken concerning which allegations are investigated and which are not, then there are judgements being made about the veracity of a claim before any evidence has been presented.  Surely sitting in judgement over an accusation before having heard any of the evidence is nothing less than bias.  In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, all those who defended him against the allegations made without having seen any evidence could not possibly be in a position free from such bias – and yet it was those self-same people who accused those calling for an investigation of bias!

The only way to clear the name of either or both parties is through an investigation and the application of law.  It seems pointless then that such a process should not be mandatory in all cases.  There is no justification for not investigating fully and properly all allegations of misconduct – whether they be sexual or otherwise.

Such a policy on its own is unlikely to protect all parties in of itself however, and all other processes would need to align to this: all other processes must accept that  judicial proceedings take precedence – over everything.  Elections – suspended, Appointments suspended.  Likewise, there cannot be positions which are not subject to judicial review – lifetime appointments cannot be excluded, nor can presidencies…

Only in a world where all claims are treated with equal weight can we truly have a system of justice which is blind.  Decisions to investigate should be automatic, not laid in the hands of people who have agendas.  Clear, defined rules should be set, and should be adhered to so as to remove all possibility of bias.  If even one person (such as Judge Kavanaugh for example) can shout their way out of being investigated for a crime then the justice system ceases to be just.