Recently, a friend of mine was accused of a crime. After he was accused, it seemed that no stone was left unturned to prove his guilt. Of course, as has become the norm in our society, his name was plastered all over town while the investigation continued. Little concern seemed to be given to the fact that the allegations may turn out to be false. After over a year of time elapsed, all charges were dropped. The prosecutor said that the decision not to prosecute should not be presumed to be an indication that the victims were lying. Okay then, what should we presume? Whatever
The fifth amendment deals with ‘due process of the law’ and it reads 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
It appears that instead of maintaining the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' as established by the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we have embraced the principle of 'How serious or heinous is the crime being charged.' Unfortunately, a person's life, liberty, and property can be at risk even though they are later found to be innocent. This reminds me of the innocent man that spent 20 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit.
One of the problems is that many people have learned or they are coached on how to use the court system to legally punish or execute revenge on someone that they have had a falling out with. Imagine that, people taking out and signing a warrant for your arrest by simply asserting that that which they are saying is true. Now I have no problem with this aspect of the system, but when it is found that the allegations are unfounded or have no basis in fact, very little is done to the one that brought the false charges.
The presumption of innocence is a precious commodity in our system of jurisprudence that we need to defend with all resources available. When the day arrives when an accusation is enough to destroy a person and their reputation without recourse, we are in trouble. When an accusers can simply slip away into the cool breeze of anonymity without consequence, we are truly heading down a slippery slope of legal 'Alice in Wonderland' where liars lay their hands on bibles, swear to tell the truth, and then lie through their teeth.
In a major trial a few years ago a man was found not guilty. He was acquitted, found not guilty, but that was not enough for many. I even heard one legal pundit say something to the effect that he was not innocent, they just couldn't prove him guilty. Well, that may be true, however, it does a great disservice to the system when an officer of the court can so flippantly dismiss the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Okay, follow me on this. A person is innocent. until proven guilty. This status of innocence is not interrupted until proven guilty. So if a person is not proven guilty then the status of innocence remains.
Listen, horrible abuses are inflicted on innocent people far too often in our nation. The legal system is there to punish the perpetrators and protect the innocents. However, turning a blind eye to legal abuse undermines the integrity of the system. You may never have experienced this side of the law, but I can tell you this. If you ever find yourself falsely accused of a crime, you could be asking yourself,
’Whatever happened to due process’ as the jail house bars slam shut.
You write very well.
Posted by: Dalia | April 24, 2009 at 08:49 AM
Thanks
Posted by: Tony McGhee | January 04, 2010 at 09:28 PM