a placeless world

It wasn't the fact that former Oregon Governor Neil Goldschmidt engaged in sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl while serving as mayor of Portland in the 1970s.

No, my colleague has been around way too long to be disgusted at that. It certainly wasn't the first time she'd heard tales of middle-aged men engaging in sexual intercourse with teenage girls. And reporters are rarely affected by such things, anyway. Hell, even "civilians" express little surprise at such developments these days. We've been shocked into submission. We're numb to news content.

And so what was it that upset my colleague as she read about the Goldschmidt affair? That the Associated Press was referring to the relationship as an affair — a consensual one.

"That wasn't consensual," she complained. "A 14-year-old girl can't give legal consent."

"For that matter, then," I replied, "the sex never occurred."

I've long been bothered by the idea that we have allowed the United States judicial system to determine what "is" and "isn't," what "did" and "didn't."

Having reported on many cases that ended with wrongful verdicts, I am especially bothered by the reverence with which the American media treats the rulings of the courts.

How does a man transition from "alleged murderer" to "murderer" just because a court decrees him so? And is it true that a man can go from "accused killer" to "not guilty" as a matter of judicial decree?

And what then, of a 14-year-old girl's consent? Did it not actually occur because we the people have decided it cannot legally occur?

Consent, my dictionary tells me, occurs when someone gives permission, approval or assent to an action. The word does not judge whether such action is appropriate or legal. It is not for Webster to decide right from wrong.

Nor is it for the courts to tell us what "is" and "isn't."

Legal and illegal, yes. Appropriate and inappropriate, sure. Moral and immoral, I will give you. And right and wrong? Absolutely.

It is well that we trust our judicial system as we do. It would not work at all if we did not.

But it is time that we stop relying upon legal definitions to set factual absolutes.

Goldschmidt's obituary is unlikely to include more than a passing reference to his indiscretions.

Though he has admitted his evils, he was never convicted of them. And in America, only the legal stamp of conviction makes it so.

How very unfortunate indeed. Goldschmidt is a scoundrel. We need not a legal ruling to know that is so.