One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. When you stop to think about that, it seems an impossibility.
Recently I read a report about an Iranian student at UCLA who was tasered by the campus police when he failed to comply with an order. I don't know the source of the story or I would cite it, but for the purpose of this thought, not knowing the source is helpful. Having been given this information, it is inevitable that we will draw our conclusions. What do we know? Well, we know that the man was attacked for being a Muslim. No, no, we don't know that. He was clearly attacked for being from the Middle East. No, we don't know that either. Well, obviously it is a case of police brutality. Maybe, but the information I've offered doesn't give you that. Apparently the student was disruptive and combative and required these measures to get him to comply. No, we don't have that, either. What do we know? Well, to be honest, we don't know anything. We don't know what the problem was, why the student was asked to leave, if race or perceived religion was an issue, how much force was actually used, or who was actually at fault. However, everyone has come to their own conclusion. The cops are bad. Or the student had it coming. Someone is guilty without ever having been proved guilty.
You know you do it. I do. O. J. was guilty and we all knew it. Now, I'm relatively sure that none of my readers were on that jury, and I'm absolutely sure that none of my readers knows all the facts, but we're mostly convinced that O. J. killed his wife even though the courts acquitted him. That is, Simpson was guilty after being declared innocent.
I'm not just speaking to you here. It's me, too. It is not possible to read or hear an account of something without coming to a conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. And it doesn't really matter the source. If you dislike or distrust the source, you might come to a different conclusion than they do, but you will come to a conclusion. Someone is guilty. No proof. Just an assumption. Maybe even a good assumption, but still an assumption.
One of the fundamental positions in our justice system is the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, yet we all come to our conclusions without the requisite proof. Is there is any hope for justice in our courts? This isn't one of those complaining pieces. I am pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" runs against our grain and yet I think that justice is often the result of our court system. This is a case of imperfect people in an imperfect premise producing a flawed but pretty impressive system of justice. Kind of makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
1 comment:
Ironic. My small group is doing a Bible Study, and one of the questions the workbook asked this week was "what is the difference between guilt and shame." We decided that while OJ is guilty, he has not demonstrated any shame! (we talked about a lot more than that, including the alternative definition of guilt as a "feeling" that can lead to shame", etc)
Something to think about, and I shared this with my small group. Guilt, in the context of having "committed an offense, crime, violation, wrong, [sin] - is certain. Assuming the "offense" is defined, one is either guilty or not. When a court declares someone guilty or innocent, it is only for the purpose of administering justice based on civil law. Just because someone is declared "not guilty" doesn't mean they aren't guilty!
Besides, I always fall back on the idea that if they find themselves accused, they must be guilty of something :)
Post a Comment