Impeachment standards
Thomas Sowell
Jewish World Review
jewishworldreview.com
VERDICTS IN CIVIL LAWSUITS are supposed to be
determined by "a preponderance of the evidence."
Criminals are to be convicted when their guilt is proved
"beyond a reasonable doubt." But what are the standards
for impeachment?
Cynics may say that it is whatever a majority of those voting
choose to use as their standard. But this is too clever by
half. At best, it describes instead of analyzing.
Using that kind of reasoning, you could say that a verdict in either a civil or a
criminal case is whatever a jury chooses to do. But surely no one wants our
courts to use that as a standard, which could make miscarriages of justice the
norm and appeals to higher courts futile.
Since we no longer believe in the
divine right of kings, holding office is
not a right but a trust. Removal from
office is therefore not so much a
punishment for an individual as a
means of safeguarding the larger
society from violations of trust by
those who hold power -- now and in
the future.
Unlike the criminal who is put behind
bars, the person who is impeached
and then convicted walks away as
free as a bird and retains all the rights that everyone else in the society has. In a
criminal case, we are talking about the enormous power of the state arrayed
against one individual. In impeachment, we are talking about someone who
already wields power over the rest of us.
It is right that we go to great lengths to make sure that an individual is subject to
punishment only after his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But
we do not require any such stringent standard in a dispute between two sides in
a civil lawsuit. There we are content to let the case be decided in favor of
whichever side has the preponderance of evidence.
When considering whether to remove someone from public
office, the power imbalance is very different from that in a
criminal case. In impeachment cases, it is the accused who has
power and the rest of us who have to be defended against its
misuse. It is not just its misuse against us personally that is
involved. Power can be misused against the institutions and
functions of government, on which the rule of law depends --
and therefore against the freedom and justice to which millions
of ordinary citizens are entitled.
Some years ago, federal judge Alcee L. Hastings was impeached and removed
from the bench by the United States Senate because of corruption charges -- on
which he had been acquitted in a court of law. After listening to many hours of the
impeachment hearings, I concluded that both the Senate and the jury were right
to reach the verdicts they did, even though these verdicts seemed to contradict
each other.
The preponderance of the evidence suggested that Judge Hastings was corrupt
-- but it was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
After being removed from the bench, Judge Hastings suffered no punishment or
loss of his rights. In fact, he exercised his right to run for Congress, where he is a
member of the House of Representatives today.
If we are going to talk about impeachment seriously -- instead of in spin and
sound bites -- then we need to talk about what it actually is. Impeachment simply
says that there is enough adverse evidence about someone in power to put that
person on trial to determine whether he or she should continue in that particular
office.
The "presumption of innocence" is a necessary shield against the power of
government in a criminal case. But no such arbitrary presumption applies in the
other 99 percent of human life.
If anything, the presumption is that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens, and
of the rule of law on which they and their descendants depend, outweigh any
non-existent right of any particular person to hold any particular office. Whether
you like or don't like the president, he is not the issue. The United States of
America is the issue.
Nor does it matter whether you like or don't like Paula Jones. She is one of those
ordinary citizens for whom courts of law exist. If she cannot get justice because
of perjury, then you cannot get justice because of perjury, if we allow it to be
winked at.
Impeachment is not a popularity contest. Nor is it a race to see how fast we can
get something unpleasant over with. That used to be called "a rush to judgment"
-- until very recently, when the spin masters changed their spin. |
