The myth of presumption of innocence
I've been out for a week, and am glad to be back. I spent 3 1/2 days at sign language school, which was a grueling experience. Not being able to talk is bad enough - its made when worse when you have trouble communicating through sign. I learned a lot though - including the fact that it's a lot harder to pick up another language though when you get older!
I read an article this morning which made a point I had not thought about. The article was about the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and how the parents had been "presumed guilty" all these years, only to be finally cleared. That case is a perfect example of why the presumption of innocence is little more than a myth.
Attend any criminal trial, and during jury selection you will probably hear defense lawyers spending a lot of time talking about the presumption of innocence. While it's an issue you need to point out, I don't think most people (jurors included), really believe it. If they answered honestly, they would say "yeah, I think he probably did it - why would they arrest him if he didn't do anything wrong". If you ask Mr. Ramsey, I'm sure he would say few people afforded him the presumption of innocence. Outside of his friends, most people probably suspected he had some involvement. He had to live under a cloud of suspicion for years, and his wife died with it still hanging over her.
Even with news of all the exonerations in the past several years, most people still think that if someone is arrested, they are probably guilty. That's probably human nature, because most of the time they are guilty. That's not an excuse though to brand someone a criminal, without hearing all the evidence. We need to do a better job of giving people the "benefit of the doubt". If you do that consistently, maybe it's a little easier to give meaning to the presumption of innocence if you are called to serve on a jury.
We need to take this case, and others like it, to remind everyone how important it is in our justice system to have the presumption of innocence.
I read an article this morning which made a point I had not thought about. The article was about the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and how the parents had been "presumed guilty" all these years, only to be finally cleared. That case is a perfect example of why the presumption of innocence is little more than a myth.
Attend any criminal trial, and during jury selection you will probably hear defense lawyers spending a lot of time talking about the presumption of innocence. While it's an issue you need to point out, I don't think most people (jurors included), really believe it. If they answered honestly, they would say "yeah, I think he probably did it - why would they arrest him if he didn't do anything wrong". If you ask Mr. Ramsey, I'm sure he would say few people afforded him the presumption of innocence. Outside of his friends, most people probably suspected he had some involvement. He had to live under a cloud of suspicion for years, and his wife died with it still hanging over her.
Even with news of all the exonerations in the past several years, most people still think that if someone is arrested, they are probably guilty. That's probably human nature, because most of the time they are guilty. That's not an excuse though to brand someone a criminal, without hearing all the evidence. We need to do a better job of giving people the "benefit of the doubt". If you do that consistently, maybe it's a little easier to give meaning to the presumption of innocence if you are called to serve on a jury.
We need to take this case, and others like it, to remind everyone how important it is in our justice system to have the presumption of innocence.
