Unless he’s guilty. Then he should resign.
We need to resist the idea that accusations = guilt. If we accept the idea that accusations are enough to destroy a career, we will feed the accusation monster.
I am no fan of Cuomo, but he — like everybody else — deserves to be treated fairly, and that means that accusations need to be proven.
What do you think should be the standard for depriving people of something less than their civil liberties? I agree that a few accusations shouldn’t be treated as guilt, but OTOH, I don’t think the standard of being convicted in a court of law should necessarily apply to things one isn’t entitled to in the first place, such as high office. What if you have someone against whom there are piles of credible accusations of misbehavior and/or malfeasance in office, who doesn’t agree that he should resign, but whom a significant part of his constituency become convinced should no longer be wielding power over them? Would people in that situation be acting unfairly to avail themselves of any recourse they had for removing him before the term of his office, or of failing to confirm or elect him to a position despite the lack of legal conviction? I’m not speaking of Cuomo here in particular, but of the principle of the thing. (I’m also not suggesting that you actually believe that no action can ethically be taken against any elected or appointed person who hasn’t been convicted of something, but I’m wondering how you’d draw the line.)
It’s a fine thing to slice, I think. I don’t really have an answer, but I don’t think “It would be wrong to remove anyone for things they’re not legally convicted of under any circumstances and your vote may not be influenced by anything less than a legal conviction” is the right answer, either.
I agree that the standard should not always be a trial. The basic idea is “innocent until proven guilty,” but “proven” has different levels of certainty in different spheres, and the jury changes as well.
Even in a legal setting, there are cases where you use “beyond a reasonable doubt” and other cases where you use “preponderance of evidence.”
In Cuomo’s case, if it became clear that he was guilty, then he should be forced out, even without a trial. But the modern phenomenon of convenient accusations that suddenly surface when it’s politically convenient stinks, and we can’t give it too much credence.
Yes, agreed, that’s a very reasonable standard.