Monday, August 27, 2018

Without knowing detail, a report involving "believe the victim" may have involved judicial overreach, or been appropriate.

Strib headlining an AP item, "Ex-CDC director Frieden accused of groping woman's buttocks - By KAREN MATTHEWS Associated Press - August 24, 2018," containng these few paragraphs:

Frieden, who also is a former New York City health commissioner, was arrested earlier Friday on three charges: forcible touching, sex abuse and harassment. His attorney, Laura Brevetti, entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.

The 55-year-old accuser, who knew Frieden, reported the encounter in July, and he was taken into custody after an investigation.

The judge ordered Frieden to refrain from any contact with the woman and to surrender his U.S. passport. Frieden was freed on his own recognizance, leaving in a car with his attorney. His next court appearance is Oct. 11.

One positive note, "believe the accuser" is better terminology, and never losing sight of presumed innocence until proven guilty, the reasonableness of what was reported rests largely on what "investigation" was entailed, with reporting of that MIA. How can we make sense of the report without scope of investigation and findings being reported (citation to and posting online the charging document would be good journalism, and not lazy journalism/editing).

Is it going too far for a butt-grab to be characterized as "forcible touching, sex abuse and harassment?" Is it over-charging? It seems such single incident things, so easily claimed without tangible evidence in most expected incidences, is resolvable between adults. It is unclear from the reporting why in this instance such a resolution was not reached. "Don't ever do that again," said and adhered to, unless there was a previous pattern of that being ineffective, should have ended the thing. Are prosecutors going too far?

However much a retained lawyer might cost for defense should factor into prosecutorial discretion, not as a weapon against persons, but as a consideration for alternate disposition of a case aside from litigation which always involves substantial costs and bother to defend.

Arguably, things have gotten out of hand.

UPDATE: Will look but don't touch be the next domino to fall? If so, would "Don't dress like that without expecting looks" be a defense?

"Abusive leering" without words or contact has not yet been reported as open to criminal charges, so, should it be?