One of the great myths of American criminal justice is the notion that everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. What a crock!
If you're ever charged with a crime, try finding someone who believes you're innocent; it's a tough sell! Sure, your parents will tell you they know you're innocent as you protest your predicament, but they will be lying. About all the presumption of innocence does for a defendant is support some degree of procedural due process before a rubber stamped conviction and sentencing. More about that some other time.
I can't help but think about an e-mail from a fellow Idaho attorney that shines light on this myth. After a recent trial, the jury deadlocked; 10 voted not guilty and 2 steadfastly maintained that the defendant was guilty as charged despite the state's obvious lack of evidence. The judge declared a mistrial.
At the trial's conclusion, the two holdouts were asked why they were so convinced of the defendant's guilt. Was it the evidence? Did it have to do with a witness's credibility? Was the defendant totally unbelievable? No. Their answer had nothing to do with the evidence, the defendant or the credibility of witnesses. It had nothing to do with the trial at all. They simply stated that law enforcement's only interest is to protect its citizens, and police would never arrest anyone who wasn't guilty of the crime charged.
Huh? Can anyone really be that naive? To be more succinct, can anyone really be that stupid? No organization is perfect, and law enforcement screws up just like the rest of us.
Go figure. . .
No comments:
Post a Comment