There is evidence. There is proof. There is hearsay. There
is impression. There is gossip and rumor. There is he-said, she-said. There is false testimony which serves to
poison a person’s reputation and is quickly withdrawn once the vandalism is
done.
There is contradictory testimony. All must be considered,
sifted, separated, and ultimately supported by vetted sources and investigated
by an impartial organization that is qualified to pick through the hard facts
and the hysteria, the accusations and the slander, using sound practices like
chain of evidence possession, multiple, independent labs, input from qualified
experts, etc.
Enough proof justifies a trial before an impartial jury and
judge. This is an indictment. An indictment is not a judgement. It is not a
sentence. An indictment merely means that a grand jury has determined that
there is enough credible evidence to warrant a trail. As they say; a grand jury
can indict a ham sandwich. It’s much like an impeachment. An impeachment is bad
press, but it is not a sentence of guilt, merely step one on the path to a
trial.
In any case the defendant has the right to face his accuser
and review the evidence against him. He has the right to counsel and to defend
himself. Cross examination. Expert witnesses. Specific accusations that do not
change over the course of the trial.
Then a judgement is made and a verdict delivered. Sentence
is then carried out, plea bargained, deals made, state’s evidence turned, the defendant
is given a chance to turn on bigger fish. Justice is disgusting. It’s one of
those things you don’t want to see close up.
During this entire procedure, up until a verdict is
delivered, the defendant is considered innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.
This is our legal system. The Rule of Law. This is the basis
of jurisprudence in the civilized world. This applies to everybody.
Individuals. Business executives. Public figures. Politicians. World leaders.
Whoever you are. People you like. People you don’t like. Hillary Clinton. Juliann
Assange. Donald Trump. Bashar al Assad. Benjamin Netanyahu. The guilt or
innocence of an accused is not dependent upon the profanity of the crime nor
upon the outrage of the masses, only on the verity of the evidence.
There’s a reason why we must insist upon a fair trial for
every war criminal and corporate or political miscreant, all the way down to
the dogcatcher and the cop on the beat. Justice is blind and so she weighs the
evidence and goes by what she knows to be true. We must do the same.
Of course, this is not what happens in the real world. This
is more idealized, Greek temple, philosophers discussing law on the steps of
the gymnasium, Middle Ages barons threatening the king if they don’t get
reforms to the legal system. And it is never done. Every age must struggle with
the ideals of justice. Do we fall back into a Machiavellian game of sabotage,
sensation, and spin? Or do we do what’s mundane and tedious. No matter how much
we may dislike someone, we still guarantee them a fair trial. Jewish scholars in
the first century believed that a Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court, that
delivered more than one death penalty in 70 years was blood thirsty. That was
an enlightened court.
Why should we care? Why not just walk away from the
slaughter of an innocent for a heinous crime as ‘justice?’ It was a horrible
crime. Everyone says this guy did it. Don’t we want justice for the innocent?
Don’t we?
Yes, we do. But remember one thing: The next one in the
docket may be you. Would you like to be judged by the mob?
No comments:
Post a Comment