|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. October 5, 2003 What is the Deal with Statutes of Limitation? By Jan A. Larson On the eve of the California recall elections, stories are breaking out all around alleging various acts of boorish behavior by front-running contender Arnold Schwarzenegger. There have been recent allegations that Schwarzenegger took liberties with the placement of his hands relative to the physical space occupied by several women on various movie sets and in other settings over the past 30 years. No sooner had those allegations broke than it was revealed that Schwarzenegger allegedly expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler when being interviewed for a book proposal in 1975, 28 years ago. Schwarzenegger issued a blanket apology to anyone that he may have "offended" in the past without acknowledging any specific improprieties. He indicated that he did not recall making any pro-Hitler comments and reiterated his contempt for Nazi Germany and for Hitler. Did Schwarzenegger touch any women inappropriately in the past 30 years? I don't know, obviously, since I wasn't there, but given the fact that he was a body builder and budding actor in those days, and based on conventional wisdom of the things that go on in Hollywood, it seems plausible. Did Schwarzenegger make any pro-Hitler comments 28 years ago? Again, I wasn't there. Maybe he did but they were tongue-in-cheek. Maybe he did and meant them. Maybe he didn't. At some point, a person's past becomes irrelevant. How many politicians today would want to face scrutiny over the things they may have done in their teens or twenties, 20, 30 or more years ago? There must be a point at which a statute of limitations applies to personal behavior, especially when considered along with a person's behavior today. If Schwarzenegger espoused the virtues of Adolf Hitler while campaigning for governor it is one thing, but to dig a tidbit of a quotation taken out of context from more than a quarter century ago is simply taking it too far. In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, each person casting a vote must decide whether these allegations of actions more than two decades ago have any relevance today and, even if they are true, do they likely reflect on Schwarzenegger's ability to be the governor of California today. Further, if these actions would be deemed to be relevant to Schwarzenegger's ability to govern, would the electorate be better off with either Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante leading the state? ABC News and the New York Times, the media outlets that broke the Hitler story, are not without a horse in the race. Both of these left-leaning institutions cannot be assumed to be undertaking nothing more than objective reporting in this case. The timing of these stories is predictable. In the last few days before the election, it is a time-honored strategy to shower an undesirable candidate with dirt leaving him little time to clean up the mess before the voters go to the polls. Both ABC and the Times likely would stand behind this story as an example of good reporting. It looks to me more like a case of mining for dirt. The law recognizes statutes of limitation for most crimes and it is time that the media recognize there is also a statute of limitations for bad behavior or questionable speech. Few events in anyone's life that occurred 20, 25 or 30 years ago have much relevance today. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
||||||||||||||
