Posted on by Californiacontrarian

A Statute of Limitations?

A Statute of Limitations?

When one likes to write, as I do, oftentimes there is a message or a point of view that I am espousing. If I like or dislike a certain person’s point of view, I try not to camouflage my opinion. Likewise politically, I do not hesitate to point out the folly of the Democrats, especially here in California, or the ineptitude of the Republicans in Washington. However today’s piece will be different. I am going to ask a question that may or may not have an answer. Perhaps my goal is really to point out the folly of what is capturing the headlines in today’s topsy-turvy sphere of politics.

My question: “Is there a statue of limitations on character?”

Before you quickly answer, think for a bit first. Forget the charged political atmosphere and try to consider this question in a vacuum.

If your answer is, “No, there is no statute of limitations on character,” then in essence what you are implying is that people do not change. If one is a creep at age fifty, he/she will be a creep until he/she dies – this is “the leopard cannot change its spots” point of view. But what about a creep a age forty? Age thirty? Age twenty? If someone is despicable in high school, will he/she always be despicable? If someone does something inexcusable as an 18 year old senior in high school, should this follow him/her forever? At age 18 do we assume that he/she is responsible and do we consider him/her as an adult? If your answer to the main question is still “No, there is no statute of limitations on character,” should we go back to age 16? Age 14?  Age 12?  At some point here, the argument becomes ridiculous. If a nine year old is suspended from school for his inappropriate behavior (kissing his teacher), should this follow him ad infinitum? I would think not.

I assume that even those of you were a staunch “No” to the question, will agree that there has to be some point at which the actions of someone at age X do not, and should not, follow that person forever.

If someone steals something at age 20 or at age 32, and then is a modicum of honesty for the next 40 years, would we, should we, consider that person as an honest person or a dishonest person?

If you were one of those who answered, “No” to the initial question, then I would think that you would consider him/her as still being a dishonest person, even though probably over 95% of us would think of him/her as honest.

Not to belabor the point, but what about St. Paul or St. Augustine?

(The more I write here, I realize that I do have an opinion on this question!)

Now let’s get to the present day situation . . . Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alabama. Judge Moore has been accused of doing some dastardly things with teen girls when he was in his early thirties. Let me say at the onset that I do not have a clue as to whether Judge Moore is guilty or innocent of the charges of the sexual impropriety that he is being accused of. I will say that I am very suspicious when the Washington Post and Gloria Allred are involved, and am even more suspicious when the stuff hits the fan just a few weeks before an election.

But be that as it may, let’s assume that Roy Moore is guilty of at least some and even all of these charges. Based on this yet unfounded assumption, the following questions arise:

Is this 72 year old judge the same person that he was in his 30s?

Did he change over the last 35-40 years or is he a leopard that does not change his spots?

Does this mean that he is not able to represent the people of Alabama in the U.S. Senate?

“Is there a statute of limitations on character?”

 

 

126 Replies to “A Statute of Limitations?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.