Due Process on the Back-burner?

In a country founded on institutions of equality and fair treatment for everyone, shouldn’t we expect appropriate attention and consequences to be enforced on criminal offenses, despite political affiliation? Recently, an uproar has surfaced this past month about conservative Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh and an accusation that he has sexually assaulted Professor Christine Ford. If we compare this to the lack of acknowledgment of several verified crimes committed by Democratic Representative of Texas Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, that impartial application of the law is being violated.

In as much as one political party member’s crime is receiving more deliberate attention than a different politically-associated member’s crimes, and how a flood of negative media was leaked before a fair trial could take place violates due process.

Due process is a principle of law that protects individuals from having the law applied impartially. Regardless of race, gender, political stance, or rank, people are to have equal consequences and application of the law.

If, for example, a Republican political leader was to be accused of a crime and get a substantial amount of unfavorable attention and detrimental consequences, a Democratic political leader who has also committed several confirmed crimes should not receive any special treatment and a metaphorical “pass” on appropriate attention and consequences. Sound familiar?

At the end of September of this year Christine Ford came forward and told Congress that at a party in Maryland in the year 1982, an intoxicated Brett Kavanaugh and one of his friends locked her in a room and tried to sexually assault her.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Due Process

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This would age Kavanaugh to be around 17 years old at the time. Fast forward a few years to 1998 when a 26-year-old Beto O’Rourke was in a serious car crash due to being intoxicated. Among other offenses, a few years ago in November of 2013, he admitted to violating the STOCK Act which prevents members of Congress from getting special deals on stocks that aren’t available to the public. He bought stock for Twitter at a publicly unavailable price, then sold it at a substantially higher price. The only result of this scandal was an apology from O’Rourke and no penalties other than returning his profits.

These are all dangerous crimes that could negatively affect other people’s lives that should not go unnoticed. Kavanaugh (Republican) doesn’t seem to have a problem with the major attention or application of the law. Since the accusation came out, a flood of liable sources with different confidential statements have been leaked to the public, making the chances of a completely fair trial dwindle. O’Rourke (Democrat) has had little press, attention, and minimal consequences for crimes that have already been proven.

This information brings up a few important questions: How does the focus of certain stories in the media affect our views? Moreover, why should we, as voters and members of this nation, care about this? These two men are simply an example of a bigger problem: arbitrary tolerance of an obvious violation of due process on the grounds of a difference in political affiliation and under/overexposed information from the media. Both men are “seeking [some] of the most important positions in the US government.” Next time we consider voting for someone seeking these positions, we must be considerate of all the unbiased information, just as parliament should apply the same laws, trials, and consequences impartially.