Soon, the House Judiciary Committee begins its hearings to determine if articles of impeachment against the President will be sent to the Senate. Our nation will then be on the painful path of punishment.

For those of us who remember the Watergate Hearings in the early 70s, the pain the nation endured cannot be forgotten. Nixon was not alone in his shame. All of us, Republican and Democrat alike, went through a shared form of torture.

Not only do those on the receiving end feel punishment, but also those on the administering end feel the pain of punishment. Humans are empathetic beings, and we know that whatever punishment is administered, it cannot undo the deed. A judge must surely be tormented when he finds that he must send an eighteen-year-old male to several years of confinement in Angola. The phrase "lambs to slaughter" comes to mind.

Once an offense has been committed, knowing that someone must go through the suffering of the punishment often worsens us. In his 1975 book, The Limits of Liberty, James Buchanan, a George Mason University economist and Nobel Laureate, refers to this as the punishment dilemma. Of course, those who want revenge feel better.

Buchanan points out that if we were committed to punish offenders and those who might commit offenses are deterred by our commitment to punish, there would be fewer offenses. This means doing the unpleasant when there are offenses by the undeterred.

Going through with Judiciary Committee hearings into the charges against President Clinton is sure to prove not just embarrassing to the President and his family, but also painful to the rest of us. But what choice do we as a nation have?

If Congress fails to hold these hearings, are we as a nation saying that it is O.K. to lie, perjure and obstruct justice if you do other things that are considered "good?" Do we really wish to send a message to those who might be asked about their sex lives in court rooms that it is O.K. to lie in such cases? We have seen a woman sent to jail for having sex with a 13 year-old boy. Would she have been justified to lie?

Worse, if the hearings, painful though they may be, are not held, what is to restrain future Presidents from abusing the power of the office beyond their character? As a nation of voters, we have not been all that choosy about character in our elected officials. (Certainly, Louisiana voters have seldom seen character as a key issue.)

Refraining from punishing law breakers makes it more likely that others will break our laws. As an example, in The Limits of Liberty Buchanan cites Jeb Magruder's testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee in June of 1973. Magruder tried to justify Nixon's burglars' law breaking by suggesting that antiwar militants of the late 60s and early 70s repeatedly went unpunished though they broke the same laws as the burglars themselves. While not mentioned in this book, Buchanan himself was actually a victim of antiwar militants who broke into his office at UCLA.

Whether Clinton is guilty of some impeachable offense or not, there are issues that need to be aired and discussed. Did Clinton commit perjury or did he obstruct justice in his testimony about his relationship with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky?" Did Judge Starr step outside the scope of his investigation in looking into the Lewinsky affair?

It is painful to subject others to punishment ("son, this is going to hurt me as much as it hurts you"). But pain is sometimes necessary for healing, for getting better ("no pain, no gain"). Surgery always involves pain, at least in recovery, and involves risk. As a nation we need to get better. Holding hearings, bringing out the evidence and allowing Clinton to defend himself, is something we must do, whether we like Clinton or not.