Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Cable TV channels and the blogosphere are ablaze with indignation about the acquittal of Casey Anthony on charges of murdering her daughter. How could this happen, they wonder, when, after months of prosecutorial leaks and millions of spoken and written words depicting Ms. Anthony as a hedonistic party-girl eager to unburden herself of an inconvenient child, we all know she must have been guilty?
Much the same can be said of the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. A notorious, wealthy lecher rapes an indigent refugee in his $3,000-per-night hotel suite. The man, rumored to be a serial sexual harasser, must be guilty. Surely, the pious Muslim single mother and refugee couldn't be lying. Even now, with the accuser's credibility in shreds, many among us wish to believe that the case has only unraveled because of Strauss-Kahn's wealth, influence and clever lawyers.
I'm appalled that the outrage about the Casey Anthony verdict and the likely vindication of Strauss-Kahn seems to be a phenomenon, for the most part, of conservatives. The criminal justice system, they seem to say, is broken.
I would maintain that the system isn't broken at all. The burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution. And when the prosecution cannot make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must go free.
Better that than to allow an innocent person to be convicted in the ignorant court of public opinion.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Maybe all the opinions aren't in quite yet.
Edited on Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59pmJan '11
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I believe that she was involved with the death of her child.
After the Duke rape case, I view high profile cases like DKS with suspicion. I think he's a jerk & was probably a solicitor/customer, but I'm skeptical of the rape charge.
In both cases, I have to agree with Kenneth - there is prosecutorial discretion that is used too infrequently. This appears to be overreach.
Dec '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The presumption still exists, here in "backwards" Florida. The most obvious case, though forgotten over the other issues, was the Schiavo case. Few know that those of us in central Florida knew in the way some know Anthony was guilty, that Michael Schiavo was probably guilty of having attempted, then succeeded in, murdering his wife. Poor detective work, many mistakes later, the only hope that Florida citizens had left of possibly seeing M. Schiavo brought to justice was the recovery of T. Schiavo. For us, it was never a case of Mom and Dad versus husband, or a right to life issue; it was always that last chance of achieving justice for the victim if she came out of her coma, if M. Schiavo had been the culprit, as the presumption has now set him free.
In these two cases, as with the O.J. verdict, the presumtion of innocence has likely allowed a culprit to escape justice on Earth that I doubt they will get a bit later on. At least in these three cases, the presumption seems to be operating effectively.
Aug '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The presumption of innocence is operative until the final verdict is rendered. Thereafter it is irrelevant and people are free to think and say what they like ( subject to the laws of defamation). By the way, as a lawyer from another common law country I expressed concern here at the time about the treatment of DSK, who may be a slime-ball, but a slime-ball has rights too.
Aug '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
In my last comment I should have said people are free to think what they like all the time. By the way, CJ Run, what you are saying is all new to me. Where do I find out more?
Aug '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I'm surprised that you compare DSK with Tot Mom. It's not a valid comparison.
Fact is, circumstantial evidence is evidence. Always has been. But now we have shallow and silly jurors who apparently watch CSI and other shows which teach them that forensics can prove guilt - if it exists. Most of the time it can't. Our legal system will fatally break down if circumstantial evidence is rejected. I have no reasonable doubt that she did it.
Cameras in the courtroom also destroy judgment and perspective.
Edited on Jul 6, 2011 at 5:09pmDec '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Charles, we're talking about many years of this issue having been on local TV or in newspapers. You could start with TBO, which is the St. Pete Times, a good but very liberal source, as in here. Even that article is long into the local process, but an example. I don't find convenient links to the local story that predate 2003, when this became a national issue.
I will look for them, as I suspect others are unaware how long this story played out in central Florida, before it became a national story. I have specifically queried earlier dates and yet, I only find 2003 through 2005 responses in the first few pages of a Google search. That was not the reality; this case dragged on for over a decade before it became federal and her parents tried to stymie M. Schiavo by offering to care for her and foot the bills. The surface of the internet appears to have been scrubbed, prior to 2003, but will be easy for me to find, later, after we feed the hungry minions of Boyz, and if I can get back to my computer before tomorrow. Check TBO prior to 2003.
Dec '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I agree with Kenneth. Our system is based on the premis that it is better to let 100 guilty people go than to convict an innocent. The system is designed to let guilty people go. Get used to it.
Dec '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I did not follow the case on TV and only became interested after the verdict. Listening to Hugh Hewitt and Allen Dershowitz go a couple rounds on it, I have to repeat Hewitt's question: what was the reasonable doubt?
The defense apparently threw out the charge that Anthony's brother had molested her and was even the father of her child, which was disproved through a DNA test. The defense accused her father of all manner of heinous acts, including disposing of the child's body after finding her drowned. Nothing was substantiated.
What was the reasonable doubt? Even Dershowitz, while claiming the prosecution over-charged the case and mistakenly built the case on the pre-meditated charge when they could have won the manslaughter charge easily, said she had all the indicia of a guilty person.
I agree with River. I think we have CSI-watching juries who are easily baffled with bunk.
May '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
The presumption of innocence remains intact. There are many people who have paid a great deal of attention to the Casey Anthony case who, after having examined the evidence available, have come to the conclusion that she was guilty. Once is evidence is assembled, then the case can be made.
May '11
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
That is why the system is broken. The fuzzy headed, feel good, garbage we hear on TV is ruining the aility to understand the responsibility jurors have to the public to enact justice.
"Reasonable Doubt" has been turned into "Beyond the shadow of a doubt."
May '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I think we need a new Miranda-type set of rights.
You have the right to a presumption of innocence and the right to an untainted jury pool. Any violation of these rights, including a photo-op "perp walk" or a press conference by a representative of the state prior to seating a jury shall be considered prosecutorial misconduct, which may or may not lead to the dismissal of charges. You have the right to exclude television cameras from your trial but do not have the right to exclude working members of the press or the public at large.
Mar '11
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Pilli
"Reasonable Doubt" has been turned into "Beyond the shadow of a doubt." · Jul 6 at 7:08pm
You just summed up what is wrong with the modern American jury system. "Reasonable Doubt" has been replaced with "Unless you have blood, prints, and a signed confesstion, we'll acquit her". As others have noted here, Hugh Hewitt had the central question; just what was the reasonable doubt considering the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the blatant lies of the defendent?
Agree also that the "CSI'ing" of juries is making things worse, not better.
Personally, the worst thing for me was hearing the speech from the shyster defense lawyer on the evil of the death penalty and about how proud he was of the case and that he was going home to brag to his daughter about it. Men like that are why Americans hate lawyers.
Jan '11
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Those not in the jury have the right to be judgmental; we're all judgmental by nature. That's not nearly the same as being a responsible juror and deciding a criminal case.
Jun '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
First, I know next to nothing about this case other than a mother was accused of murdering her child. I know nothing about the evidence.
Second, Kenneth is absolutely right about the presumption of innocence. As government grows in power (and more and more things are declared criminal), we should hope and pray it remains that way. If, someday, you are innocent and being accused of a crime by the government, you'll be glad the presumption exists.
Third, in a criminal trial the prosecution bears the burden of proof, and the burden is very high (beyond a reasonable doubt). On this site, most of us honor the Constitution. Amendment VI says that in a criminal prosecution "the accused shall; enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."
Given that, there are times when a person who is guilty as sin is found not guilty. That's the way our system works. If the jury did not find her guilty, it doesn't mean she didn't do it. It means the jury was not convinced. They could be stupid, but that's our system.
I completely agree with EJ (No TVs in the courtroom).
Oct '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
Call me judgmental, but not reporting your 2 year old as missing for 30 days after they went missing seems like it might qualify for criminal neglect.
Jul '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
All I'll say is they convicted Scott Peterson with less evidence. Presumption of innocence does not mean I should shut my brain off and not understand that a girl's body was found in a shallow ditch in a bag with her mouth and nose taped up with a rare kind of tape that will stick to skin, even under damp, wet conditions. Or that Ms. Anthony did nothing (except party) for 31 days after her daughter was missing (question for Kenneth: how long would your dog go missing before you totally freaked out?), there was DNA evidence that a dead girl's body (Caylee) in the trunk of Ms. Anthony's car, and the internet history of her mom's computer included "chloroform" and there were vast amounts of chloroform (a quite volatile substance) found in the trunk of the same car. She repeated lied to the police about her boyfriend, her nanny (named Zanny! who is suing Casey for defamation of character) and was convicted of lying to the authorities. Clearly every piece of evidence pointed to Casey Anthony as the killer of her daughter. Only the monumentally stupid would think otherwise. See: Simpson, O.J.
Aug '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
"Fact is, circumstantial evidence is evidence." No one says it isn't. In fact, it is among the strongest evidence. But it must illustrate a plausible and reasonable narrative of the crime. I didn't watch every minute of the trial. I don't have all the evidence. The jury did. They made their decision.
Any speculation on our part is just that, and most criticisms of the jury seem to assume they were idiots. I won't make that assumption. And if you genuinely review your own opinion, you might find that it was heavily cued by pundits and not by evidence, but that might be me being as presumptive of how you form opinions as you are of the jury.
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I have to confess: I was sure DSK did it. And the Casey Anthony case brings me to another confession: I honestly didn't know anything about it. Never really penetrated my bubble of total ignorance on that stuff, since I don't really watch TV news and just bleep over anything that seems like reality television.
I was upbraided for my ignorance by my family, who were all surprised by the verdict.
But not outraged. More like, resigned that the jury still wasn't sure, or that the prosecution failed to make its case, or that what we all heard outside of the courtroom is altogether different from what went on inside the courtroom.
These things happen -- have happened for the almost 250 of American jurisprudence.
On the other hand, this web meme hit my inbox yesterday:
Jul '10
Re: Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?
I really have to hand it to the jury in the Anthony case.
It's apparent, from their comments, that at least some of them believed Casey Anthony was responsible for her daughter's death.
But they took their civic responsibility as jurors more seriously: they were there to weigh whether the prosecutor had presented a case which proved the specific charge beyond a reasonable doubt. They concluded that the prosecutor failed to meet that standard and so, despite the arc of the narrative, delivered the acquittal.
That's a very principled stance, particularly given the gale force of publicity surrounding the case. And, should any of us be brought to trial, it's a stance we can only hope the jurors in our own case will adhere to.
Edited on Jul 6, 2011 at 9:06pm