Roy Moore, Republican candidate for senator of Alabama, has dug in. Earlier this week, four women came forward to tell their stories of sexual contact with Moore, only one of which would be criminal if the allegations are true. Their encounters with Moore happened more than 38 years ago, which does not mean their stories are false, only that their credibility suffers due to the lapse in time. Moore flatly denies knowing two of the women, but vaguely recalls the other two.

The criminal allegation involves Moore “dating” a 14 year old girl. He was 32 at the time and a district attorney. She says they met at the courthouse, where he offered to sit with her (babysit?), while her mother went into a courtroom to deal with her legal matters (it looks like she was there for a divorce). When he was alone with the girl, he asked for her phone number. He subsequently called and arranged to pick her up around the corner from her house on two occasions. He took her to his house where they kissed on the first visit, and on the second he initiated some touching while they were both undressed to their undergarments. The girl asked to be taken home on both occasions and Moore did as she asked. Moore denies this ever happened and claims he does not know this person. The encounters recited by the other women all happened about the same time, when Moore was in his early 30s, and the young women were aged 16-18, above the age of consent in Alabama. We would look on that age gap as creepy, but there is nothing criminal about those encounters.

Roy Moore denies knowing accuser, any sexual misconduct https://t.co/v5YEeMddx8

— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) November 10, 2017

If the allegations from the 14 year old are true, there is no escaping the fact that Moore committed a criminal act, and anyone who commits a criminal act should not be honored by being able to represent Americans in the highest houses of Congress. In this case it is very unlikely, without a confession from Moore, that there will ever be a clear determination as to whether this happened. People will either choose to believe it or not, the epitome of he-said, she-said.

Roy Moore: "I don't know Ms. Cortman from .. anybody. I never did talk to her, never had any contact with her. Allegations of sexual misconduct with her are completely false, I believe they're politically motivated."

— Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) November 10, 2017

Roy Moore: "I do recognize however the names of two of these young ladies, Debbie Wesson and Gloria Thacker, which, they have a, that was her maiden name."

— Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) November 10, 2017

Things that make this a credible allegation are some corroborating evidence. The Washington Post reports that the girl’s mother was in the courthouse about the time claimed, that the girl did tell her mother about 10 years after it happened, and that the girl told two girlfriends about the encounters about the time of the incidents. Additional pattern behavior of Moore tends to show he liked to date much younger women, but that would never be evidence that could be used against him at trial – that is only good for conviction in the court of public opinion.

Things that make this allegation suspect are some problems with the circumstances of the revelation. This happened 38 years ago, that is a very long time. The longer a victim waits to report a crime, the less credible their story. Moore has loomed large as a political figure in Alabama for decades. If this was so troubling, it seems to many rational people that these allegations would have come out much sooner. This is being reported by the Washington Post, a newspaper that has exhibited clear bias against Republicans. This is coming out at a very important time during Moore’s election – only a few weeks to go before the voting, typical timing for an October-like surprise bombshell. Further, while not easily refutable, all these witnesses could be lying – the 14 year old girl, her mother, and her two friends. They all know each other and could’ve crafted the story together.

Now all of the problems with the credibility of the allegations do not prove they are untrue, and some may tend to think the line up of unfavorable facts tips the scale in favor of the accusers. There is no way to prove the allegations beyond witness statements – so we are left with being forced to fight over something that can never be known. It’s a terrible situation for Americans.

There are statutes of limitations on crimes and civil claims for a reason. A person cannot be made to defend himself for an indefinite number of years because at some point, we have decided that to prosecute that person would impinge upon his due process. This is our legal system, where we have agreed that a plaintiff or a prosecutor must bear the burden of proof when bringing a claim. Bringing a claim too long after the fact unfairly burdens the defendant to such a degree that his due process will be denied. Memories fade, witnesses die, documentation disappears. Surely this allows guilty men to walk among us, but it also guarantees that should we also be accused we will have our chance in a judicial system that respects the due process of innocent people as well. It is a balance we have struck in our social contract.

Over the years, this idea that claims that lay dormant for decades may be brought forward if they are heinous enough, has eroded the concept of statute of limitations. A classic example were those against the Catholic Church, where the Church was complicit in hiding away pedophile priests who terrorized parish after parish of young people. Many, many efforts were made to prosecute priests individually, and make claims against the Church. Not all were successful, but some were, and new suits for old allegations are being filed everyday. But today it seems that we don’t need the judicial system to get roughly equivalent results. Mere allegations can ruin reputations, cause job loss, family strife, general blackballing, and other worldly punishments – if not doled out by our justice system, then certainly handed down through the public shaming system. The repercussions seem like they may in some cases be quite equal or maybe even worse than judicial fines or imprisonment itself.

The problem with this unruly mob rule system of justice is that it is dispensed on an ad hoc basis, and results in an unfairness that highlights the hypocrisies of our social norms. Some people skate out of the allegation, others are harshly punished. The more these hypocrisies are laid bare, the more this divides our communities. While it is a good thing that a society would have social norms and expectations of behavior, it is a bad thing when those expectations are applied inconsistently and haphazardly. We have tipped the scales too far in the application of mob rule justice and we are reaping the rewards – a society that exists in defense mode – constantly on the edge of anger and violence. We need to pull back from this state of being to have any hope of delivering to our youth an America worth defending.

Therefore, I propose a bright line rule: Any allegation that comes forward outside the legal statute of limitations for the claim must be dismissed as not credible in the court of public opinion. This may sound harsh, but as a society we have allowed accusers to corrode the justice system by ignoring it altogether. Yes, there exists perfectly understandable and sympathetic reasons for allowing claims to lay dormant, but the unfairness of the extra-adjudication of such claims outside the legal system, diminishes our faith in an open society. Further, and more damaging, the dormancy perpetuates secrets and shame, the opposite of honesty and hope. Yes, it will be hard or even debilitating to come forward, but we have to create rules, norms, and expectations that encourage this brutal exposure. It is no less painful for a victim to come forward later, than it is sooner. Let’s teach people to come forward at or as near as possible to the time of the offense, and in any case no later than the statute of limitations on such offense.

Instead, we have created rules that actually encourage this dormancy – we are told to believe the accusers without scrutiny and excuse their delay because we want to be empathetic, but in turn do much injustice to the accused and others. There is no public defense that may be shown that can balance the scales in this mode of justice. The accuser wins every time – by permanently scarring the accused, and when that happens, another more insidious action is encouraged – that of false allegations. All a false accuser has to do is make the allegation and the scales of public justice are tipped indelibly in their favor. We should not encourage this result through our own niceness.

In many cases, allowing allegations to remain dormant also endangers future victims. Much better to face the difficulty as soon as possible than to let it fester for years and ruin even more lives. For untrue allegations, it makes it impossible for innocent people to defend themselves; and what’s more, the accuser is rightfully questioned in these cases, which is also bad as we strive to find protection for victims. The bottom line is that nobody wins when decades old allegations surface – not the victim, not the accused, not society. This alternative system of justice, mob rule, is very damaging to our society, but as long as people are in a state of elevated self-righteousness, there is no end in sight.