Editorial Roundup: New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

The Lessons of #MeToo’s Monster

The New York Times

Feb. 24

What does the hard-won, long-overdue conviction of Harvey Weinstein demonstrate?

It shows how difficult it can be to bring abusers to justice, particularly when they are wealthy and powerful. It shows how much the #MeToo movement has changed American life. And it shows how far society still has to go.

Mr. Weinstein was convicted on Monday of a felony sex crime and rape in the third degree but was acquitted of the most serious counts against him, predatory sexual assault. He is headed for at least five years in prison. That’s a victory for Mr. Weinstein’s victims.

But the Weinstein case shows the obstacles presented by the American legal system to successfully prosecuting abusers. The case, tried in a Manhattan courtroom, rested on testimony from just six women out of the more than 90 who have accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual misconduct. (He also faces charges in Los Angeles of raping one woman and groping and masturbating in front of another.) It took decades of persistence by survivors, advocates, journalists and law enforcement to call Mr. Weinstein to account before the law. In 2015, Cyrus Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, declined to prosecute credible allegations against Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Vance acted years later only after dozens of women went public with their allegations.

Mr. Weinstein’s prosecutors were able to break through a barrier common to many assault cases, a lack of physical or other corroborating evidence. And they also overcame another, even more fundamental barrier: basic mistrust of women alleging sexual assault.

Women have internalized that message of mistrust. Despite the far-reaching message of #MeToo, a vast majority of sexual assault victims - estimated to be more than three-quarters of them - never report their attackers to the authorities. Many have been conditioned to feel ashamed, as though the assault was their fault; those who know it wasn’t still have little faith in a criminal justice system that routinely disregards the testimony of victims.

If a more balanced legal approach to sexual assault is going to become the norm instead of the exception, then, for a start, the law needs to change. State statutes of limitations need to be extended or eliminated to give victims the opportunity to come forward even years after a traumatic assault. (Now, in some states, the statute of limitations for felony sex crimes expires after 10 years or less.)

Enforcement needs to change as well. Law enforcement authorities need to let women know that they will be listened to, and that their cases will be prosecuted quickly and thoroughly. Victims need to have confidence that their attacker’s DNA won’t be stashed away for decades in a file cabinet.

Mr. Weinstein’s lead lawyer said her client was simply “a target of a cause and of a movement.” That’s correct - if the cause is holding sexual abusers to account, and the movement is the national shift in consciousness over these crimes that arose in large part out of the revelation of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior. So his conviction, too, stands for something larger: that some measure of justice can be attained, and with it the balance of power between sexual predators and their victims can begin to shift.

Online: https://nyti.ms/2Ps1H9X

___

A judge speaks truth to Trump

Newsday

Feb. 20

“The truth still exists, the truth still matters … Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the foundations of our democracy. If it goes unpunished it will not be a victory for one party or another; everyone loses.”

Those remarks Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson just before she sentenced Roger Stone to 40 months in prison attest to the brilliance of the nation’s founders in establishing an independent judiciary that gives federal judges lifetime appointments, free of the political pressures of the day.

Stone, a fraud and dirty trickster, was convicted of seven felonies for lying to Congress to thwart its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. During the trial, Stone, a friend of President Donald Trump for four decades, defied the judge’s ruling not to publicly discuss the case. He then posted a photo on his Instagram account of her overlaid with crosshairs.

For his part, Trump has publicly criticized the judge, the prosecutors and the jury forewoman in the case. His attorney general, William Barr, created an uproar after the Justice Department withdrew the original sentencing memo in the case and replaced it with one recommending a more lenient sentence. That led all four prosecutors in the case to withdraw. Jackson called the sentencing shuffle “unprecedented.” And it didn’t help Barr’s protestations that he didn’t meddle in the case when a few days later Trump declared himself the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer.”

A few hours after Stone’s sentencing, Trump doubled down on his efforts to discredit the case, which stemmed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. At a “Hope for Prisoners” graduation ceremony in Las Vegas, Trump said: “I’m following this very closely and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration, in my opinion.” Thankfully, at least for the moment, Trump won’t add Stone to his list of questionable pardons. “I’m not going to do anything in terms of the great powers bestowed upon a president of the United States. I want the process to play out.”

Stone is asking for a new trial and will undoubtedly appeal his conviction. Whether the reprehensible Stone ever sees the inside of a prison cell is beside the point. Trump’s continued attacks on federal judges because of rulings he doesn’t like, and his preference for a justice system that rewards him and his friends while punishing his enemies, are an alarming affront to our constitutional system.

This judge directly refuted the most powerful man in the world, one who repeatedly has claimed that Stone, like his other friends, are victims of a “witch hunt.” No, the judge said, speaking about Stone but also powerfully about the majesty of our governing system, designed to protect us from authoritarianism.

“He was not prosecuted as some have complained, for standing up for the president; he was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”

Online: https://nwsdy.li/2HZH9lg

___

Could a democratic country contain virus as well as China has?

Adirondack Daily Enterprise

Feb. 20

China’s experience with the deadly new coronavirus labeled COVID-19 has “bought the world time” to plan our own strategies against the disease, the head of the World Health Organization commented a few days ago.

Well, yes. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is correct about COVID-19. Chinese officials’ actions have erected something of a firewall against the disease, but it has been only partially successful.

COVID-19 has spread to nearly 30 other countries, including the United States. Only the action of Chinese officials in virtually walling off many cities from the outside world prevented a more widespread outbreak.

By Monday, just five deaths outside China had been blamed on COVID-19. Only 15 cases had been reported in the United States.

But in China, the tragedy has been much, much worse. There, by Monday, about 69,000 cases of COVID-19 had been reported. It had killed 1,665 people.

Only the kind of severe, widespread action possible in a totalitarian country such as China has prevented a much wider, much more deadly epidemic. Tens of millions of Chinese have been quarantined, with travel into and out of their regions nearly banned by the government. We know from news media reports that some people suspected of having been exposed to the virus were taken forcibly from their homes.

Could such action be taken in, say, the United States? It is doubtful.

So the Chinese experience is more than buying time for the rest of the world to cope with COVID-19. It also is a wakeup call regarding emerging diseases - and there are many of them.

What if the very first serious outbreak of COVID-19 had been in another country? The United States? Germany? Japan? Brazil?

Stop and think about that. Emerging diseases may well be the greatest threat to humankind. Are our government and others doing enough about that?

Online: https://bit.ly/2VqIx8e

___

It May Be Time To Take A Fresh Look At The ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Post-Journal

Feb. 24

So-called “red flag” laws have been suggested by some as at least a partial answer to keeping firearms away from those who might use them to harm themselves or others. But experiences in Florida, which has had such a statute for nearly three years, indicate a variety of concerns about them.

“Red flag” laws make it easier for law enforcement agencies to take guns away from people who have demonstrated potentially violent mental instability. Judges have to approve law enforcement request for such seizures.

Not long after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that state’s legislators enacted a “red flag” law. The Associated Press reviewed its use in the nearly two years since then.

Though the AP did not make this point, one consideration is the very number of times Florida law enforcement agencies have used the law: more than 3,500 times during about two years. Common sense would indicate that many of those from whom firearms were taken would not have used them against themselves or others.

But some officials told the AP they are delighted to have the law. “We have needed this law for decades,” said Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.

Some critics want the law rescinded or amended. One quoted by the AP, attorney Kendra Parris say the new statute is not needed. Tools already in the law books, such as those involving breach of the peace, permit police and sheriff’s deputies to take guns from those who may be dangerous, she said.

One constitutional concern is that because Florida’s “red flag” law does not involve a criminal charge, those whose firearms are seized are not entitled to state-provided attorneys if they cannot afford them. That is discrimination against lower-income people, critics say.

Abut 18 states have “red flag” laws. The AP’s examination of the Florida experience indicates that officials in those with the statutes may want to take fresh looks at them - and those where they are being considered should study how they have worked elsewhere. Regardless of whether one favors such restrictions, it is clear that, if enacted, they must be handled with care.

Online: https://bit.ly/3a2ib0g

___

Viewing shifts forcing change

Plattsburgh Press-Republican

Feb. 20

In case you weren’t aware, there is a revolution, of sorts, going on in the world of television viewing.

After years of being at the mercy of cable and satellite companies, viewers are loosening the grip that has held them to costs and choices they can’t control.

The reason: streaming.

For the uninitiated, streaming allows a movie, TV show or sports event to be transmitted a few seconds at a time via the Internet to your television, computer, phone or other device.

It is fairly inexpensive, compared with cable TV and satellite dish charges, which can top $100 a month, depending on the package you choose.

Netflix, for example, costs about $16 a month, and you can watch it anyplace you go by just signing on to your account. Other popular streaming services in an ever-growing list are Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus and Sports Fanatics.

These days, people don’t have to pay for hundreds of TV channels when they actually watch maybe 20 or 30.

While most Americans still subscribe to cable or satellite, some, including many younger people, are skipping those services and just using a less expensive streaming service.

Last March, Forbes magazine reported that more people now subscribe to streaming services than cable TV.

The article cited a survey by Deloitte, a consulting firm, that found 69 percent of consumers pay for an internet video streaming service, while only 65 percent pay for cable or satellite subscriptions.

“The trend in these cable-cutting data are fairly generational,” Forbes wrote, noting that among millennials (ages 22 to 35), 88 percent subscribe to internet video services compared to 51 percent to cable or satellite, and among Generation Z (ages 14 to 21) only 80 percent subscribe to internet video services and 57 percent for traditional pay TV.

The fallout from these changes is growing. For some people, that could mean no network TV unless they buy an indoor antenna box to pull in free channels that are within range. HDTV antenna devices are suddenly more in demand; they are inexpensive (usually under $50).

TV networks are trying to make consumers aware of that availability, not wanting to lose viewers for their TV and news shows. They know people’s choices are changing for when, how and where they watch.

Networks are scrambling to add streaming services, cable and satellite companies are starting to offer discounts (especially if you suggest you may cancel), and consumers are gaining more ability to take charge.

One longtime annoyance that consumers are also starting to fight is sneaky service fees imposed by pay-TV companies. You think you have a rate locked in, but then start seeing regional sports charges, broadcast fees and other add-ons.

Consumer Reports is backing a TRUE Fees Act in Congress that would force cable and satellite TV providers to advertise a price that includes all fees. You can support that effort by signing an online petition found at: CR.org/cablefees0120.

Competition is forcing changes that could benefit customers. Traditional TV networks and pay-TV services had better adapt if they intend to keep their audiences tuned in.

Online: https://bit.ly/2wGKLWH

___