Innocent until proven guilty?
It used to be a proud boast of this country that we had a legal system in which you were innocent until proven guilty.
The more serious the crime, the more important it was that this remained true.
When the police made a public statement, including an appeal for witnesses or evidence, about any investigation they were pursuing, they used to bend over backwards to avoid saying anything which gave even the appearance that they had pre-judged whether a suspect was guilty. They nearly always refused to release the names of suspects even where it was obvious who it was, falling back on phrases like "a man has been arrested" or "Two people are helping police with their inquiries."
When TV and newspapers reported a criminal investigation, they mostly gave at least lip service to the same principle, and at least pretended to avoid writing anything which might unduly influence the minds of potential jurors and make it difficult to organise a fair trial.
Over the past few years these principles appear to have been abandoned by police and media alike.
To coin a phrase, the principle that people can be pre-judged as guilty has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
Call me old fashioned, but I happen to think the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty is an essential part of any legal framework which aims not merely to be called a Justice system but actually to deliver Justice. It is an important defence against the danger of innocent people having their lives wrecked by false or mistaken allegations.
When allegations of a serious crime are made, whatever the alleged crime, whoever is the alleged perpetrator and whoever is the alleged victim, they should be properly investigated and should not be pre-judged as true or false.
You do not get justice by ignoring or rubbishing allegations, but witch-hunts do not deliver justice either. It is the negation of justice to shout to the rooftops about the accusations against someone while paying no attention to whether there is any evidence in their defence.
Dan Hodges wrote in the Daily Telegraph today that "The Edward Heath witch-hunt is the stuff of Hitler's dreams."
He has a point.
I do not wish to live in either a society where children can be abused with impunity because nobody will take their word seriously, nor in one where one false or mistaken allegation is all it takes to destroy someone's reputation because all allegations are presumed to be true.
The more serious the crime, the more important it was that this remained true.
When the police made a public statement, including an appeal for witnesses or evidence, about any investigation they were pursuing, they used to bend over backwards to avoid saying anything which gave even the appearance that they had pre-judged whether a suspect was guilty. They nearly always refused to release the names of suspects even where it was obvious who it was, falling back on phrases like "a man has been arrested" or "Two people are helping police with their inquiries."
When TV and newspapers reported a criminal investigation, they mostly gave at least lip service to the same principle, and at least pretended to avoid writing anything which might unduly influence the minds of potential jurors and make it difficult to organise a fair trial.
Over the past few years these principles appear to have been abandoned by police and media alike.
To coin a phrase, the principle that people can be pre-judged as guilty has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
Call me old fashioned, but I happen to think the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty is an essential part of any legal framework which aims not merely to be called a Justice system but actually to deliver Justice. It is an important defence against the danger of innocent people having their lives wrecked by false or mistaken allegations.
When allegations of a serious crime are made, whatever the alleged crime, whoever is the alleged perpetrator and whoever is the alleged victim, they should be properly investigated and should not be pre-judged as true or false.
You do not get justice by ignoring or rubbishing allegations, but witch-hunts do not deliver justice either. It is the negation of justice to shout to the rooftops about the accusations against someone while paying no attention to whether there is any evidence in their defence.
Dan Hodges wrote in the Daily Telegraph today that "The Edward Heath witch-hunt is the stuff of Hitler's dreams."
He has a point.
I do not wish to live in either a society where children can be abused with impunity because nobody will take their word seriously, nor in one where one false or mistaken allegation is all it takes to destroy someone's reputation because all allegations are presumed to be true.
Comments