I heard an interview on NPR this morning with Abby Honold, a sexual assault victim seeking to get a bill passed that would fund training for officers interviewing trauma victims. She explained that since the accusations of sexual misconduct against Al Franken emerged, she is seeking a different sponsor for the bill. She had liked working with him, but under the circumstances she felt his sponsorship was inappropriate.

Rachel Martin, the interviewer, asked whether she thought Franken should resign. Honold said that while she understood why many might think so, she also felt strongly about respecting victims, and since Franken’s accuser, Leeann Tweeden, did not think he should resign, Honold was not prepared to contradict her. Martin pounced, positing that “the central question here” is “the trade-off that happens. … Republicans in Alabama will point to Roy Moore and say, yes, his transgressions are abhorrent, but we need him in the Senate to further our own legislative priorities. And while you personally, Abby, might find Senator Franken’s actions abhorrent, … you’re not willing to call him out and call on him to step down.”

Seriously? Honold said she doesn’t want Franken to sponsor her bill because the accusation was true, and she thinks the victim’s position should be supported. She added that there should be an investigation, which Franken has also requested.

Honold is a measured speaker, a thoughtful advocate, and the victim of a sadistic serial rapist. In other words, not a person with a politicized agenda. But the US media, even the mainstream media, seem to seek controversy these days.

More important, the reporter missed an opportunity to have a really interesting discussion: are some predators worse than others? I suspect one answer may have to do with power. If the predation includes any aspect of intimidation or control, certainly it is egregious. Without such, is it less so?

Most sexual-predator resignations in the news are happening due to the distaste factor, not because of criminal prosecutions. There’s a sort of shunning going on. It’s a shunning that would not have happened in the Mad Men era, even though some of the harassments did. Should time frame be a factor?

Many sex crimes have statutes of limitation, and every state is different. That seems like an issue, too.

We should be thinking about these issues, and trying to find some standards on which to proceed, before we are inundated with cases. It would be a shame if perpetrators were treated differently based on when their case was revealed rather than on the damage caused. We may also have to deal with false accusations, which could become very divisive and be just as reputation-destroying.

As far as interviewers go, my favorite is Robert Siegel. He asks innocuous-sounding questions of controversial subjects in a calm voice. Often, his subject will insert head into noose unwittingly. There’s no need to introduce conflict if you can entice someone to confess.