What happens when a person of power or prestige is found to have said or done something reprehensible in his or her past?

Should they be held accountable for those words or actions? What if it was years, maybe even decades ago? When does the so-called “social statute of limitations” run out?

It’s a difficult question.

Take for example Brett Kavanaugh. During his confirmation hearings, the now Supreme Court justice was accused of sexually assaulting women during his high school and college years.

The legal statute of limitations had run out, but some people felt that a social statute still applied, possibly indefinitely. They argue that if true, these allegations disqualify Kavanaugh from ever being on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh’s accusers didn’t press charges when they could have, so the justice systems sees Kavanaugh as innocent.

But what if those women had pressed charges and proven Kavanaugh guilty in a court of law? What if Kavanaugh then accepted and fulfilled his punishment? It is unlikely that if he had been charged with the incident at the time of the accusation that he would have ever elevated to his current status in the courts.

Should someone accused of sexual assault sit on the highest court?

Consider a different situation. Kevin Hart recently took center stage as old jokes and tweets resurfaced, forcing Hart to step down from hosting the Oscars. The jokes and tweets are considered homophobic.

Hart’s situation is not unique. While he has apologized for hurting people with homophobic material and explained that he wants to adapt to prevent hurting people in the future; he has not apologized for the material itself, stating that he wasn’t trying to hurt people and that the material wasn’t intended to be malicious.

So what should come of Hart? After all, it was his decision to step down from the Oscars. Should people quit going to his shows? Should show’s quit asking him to host? Should video streaming services drop his material from their platforms? Perhaps capitalism will decide for us.

This takes us to our final example: Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam. Photos have recently surfaced in the personal page of his medical school yearbook that show a student wearing blackface standing next to another student wearing the Ku Klux Klan robes.

Although he first owned up to being one of the two students pictured, he now denies being either. This incident raises another question. Northam never did anything illegal, but his actions were certainly despicable. Should he resign? His colleagues sure thinks so.

The situations surrounding these three individuals are significantly different, yet all carry a social statute of limitations/

So what do we the people do about these individuals of power and prestige? It’s definitely hard to make a decision without all of the facts. Your choice might also depend if you were hurt by any of these individuals actions. Maybe you’re a forgiving person. Your political views may also influence your judgement.

But that’s something for you to figure out as you develop your own philosophy, one most likely shaped by the digital age.