An axiom, or a foundational truth, is something so self-evident as to be free of criticism. However, the axioms we'll be examining on this blog are in the process of being criticized and reviled right now, in this very day and age. Should they be? Well, that's not for me to decide. But it's our job to look with a critical eye at some of the basest of our assumptions.
Just to catch you up to speed, here's the definition of the idea: presumption of innocence means that the burden is laid upon the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt. Now, it's traditionally used in conjunction with the phrases "probable cause" and "reasonable doubt," but those both come after presumption of innocence moves from the actual to the theoretical. For our understanding, we can define it as so:
The defendant is considered innocent unless proven otherwise.
This is something so basic--so axiomatic--that we hear it and move on. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a correct process. Let's acknowledge its problems.
- Poor prosecution may lead to improper acquittals
- People tend to ignore this axiom under emotional duress
- Criminals may not be prosecuted or jailed as quickly as they should
- Lack of evidence may lead to improper acquittals
- The prosecution may be overzealous in its process
- Money and time constraints may halt prosecution when it's needed
- The axiom is confusing; in fact, innocence is only presumed until probable cause is provided.
These are all very real issues with the axiom. If you want to support it, you should be aware of the risks.
Recently, point 2 has come into the public view with increasing regularity. Cases with high emotional content have shown that some are completely willing to decry others--like the recent Bill Cosby rape case--without evidence more compelling than hearsay. These people don't like to hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty," because they perceive it as a challenge to the victims. Some call it "Victim Blaming," which is a can of worms we can't open yet. Most, I expect, don't like the phrase because the people who use it are the kinds of people they find objectionable.
Well, it's fair to look at the alternative. So let's do just that.
The defendant is considered guilty until proven otherwise.
Sounds bad already, right? Well, let's give it a fair try. What problems might we encounter?
What happens when we consider censorship?
Comedians often say offensive things to get laughs. It's what they do. Books are often offensive to prove a point, to show a culture, or to shock the reader. Many of the most influential American novels (Huck Finn, Catcher, Cabin, Mockingbird) were once or are even now frequently edited, challenged or banned. Consider how easy it would be to prove emotional distress and get someone who dared to speak up jailed because of it.
We'll talk about censorship later. For now, consider that dystopian idea.
Well, it's fair to look at the alternative. So let's do just that.
The defendant is considered guilty until proven otherwise.
Sounds bad already, right? Well, let's give it a fair try. What problems might we encounter?
- Poor prosecution may lead to improper convictions
- People tend to ignore this under emotional duress
- The innocent may be jailed without warning or due process
- Lack of evidence may lead to improper convictions
- The defense may be overzealous
- Money and time constraints may halt defense when it's needed
Well, we certainly take away the confusing bit. The defendant would be considered guilty every step of the way. One less drawback; that's good, right?
Well, I left a couple out.
What happens when we consider money?
Right now it costs both prosecution and defense a lot of time and money to be involved in a criminal case. It should certainly cost the prosecution money: otherwise fake cases would be easy to undertake. But if the burden of proof is on the defense every step of the way, it's a very real possibility that the defendant could be the only one paying out of pocket. Right now the case process is balanced: the defense has the upper hand until probable cause is established, and then the prosecution has the high ground. Creating an imbalance one way or another is not a good idea.
What happens when we consider weaponized courts?
Right now public officials, famous individuals and large corporations are in danger from anyone looking to make a quick buck. With famous success stories like the McDonalds' hot coffee spill, everyone knows the best way to get rich quick is to exploit liability. However, court processes are long, arduous and expensive. Additionally, no ill effects are (hopefully) seen by the defendant until probable cause is established; otherwise, anyone could be tossed in jail because I made a claim against them.
If I don't like my neighbor down the street, I could make a claim of some sort of criminal abuse, and she would be in jail as soon as you could snap. Due to the "presumed guilty" rule, she'd stay there until bail was paid or the court had its way with her. Maybe she'd prove her innocence, or maybe not. If I wanted to exploit a business opportunity, it might not be such a bad idea to have an opponent jailed until a deal goes through. Even if I have to pay the court costs, it might be worth it.
What happens when we consider censorship?
Comedians often say offensive things to get laughs. It's what they do. Books are often offensive to prove a point, to show a culture, or to shock the reader. Many of the most influential American novels (Huck Finn, Catcher, Cabin, Mockingbird) were once or are even now frequently edited, challenged or banned. Consider how easy it would be to prove emotional distress and get someone who dared to speak up jailed because of it.
We'll talk about censorship later. For now, consider that dystopian idea.
One way to look at the problem is to consider worst cases.
What happens when we consider a worst case scenario, personally?
In the original axiom, the worst case is that I cannot jail a criminal who deserves justice. He may kill again, do violence again, without anyone to stop him.
In the next, the worst case is that I am jailed without due process and without presumption of innocence. I remain in jail until I pay bail (and if I don't have enough money?), then try to hire a defense lawyer (at an exorbitant price to offset their likely loss) and sit through the court proceedings. Afterwards I am either unfairly imprisoned or paid a stipend to offset my losses throughout the case, which likely won't cover my absence from work, the sullying of my name and the court costs.
How am I to defend but to accuse someone who I think might accuse me? I have to strike first.
On second thought, let's keep presumption of innocence. Who wants to see more money in the hands of lawyers?
In the next, the worst case is that I am jailed without due process and without presumption of innocence. I remain in jail until I pay bail (and if I don't have enough money?), then try to hire a defense lawyer (at an exorbitant price to offset their likely loss) and sit through the court proceedings. Afterwards I am either unfairly imprisoned or paid a stipend to offset my losses throughout the case, which likely won't cover my absence from work, the sullying of my name and the court costs.
How am I to defend but to accuse someone who I think might accuse me? I have to strike first.
On second thought, let's keep presumption of innocence. Who wants to see more money in the hands of lawyers?
No comments:
Post a Comment