Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
The most difficult part of being an American citizen is the faith we must exhibit in the justice system. The challenge lies in remembering that, as citizens, we are also potential jurors with another person’s fate in our hands. Often, we forget our civic duty, viewing each crime through our own subjective lens and allowing ourselves to condemn people for acts they are accused of committing before a case ever goes to trial. Such views allow us to both vilify and rationalize hatred for someone whose face is splashed everywhere, branded with the word “terrorist,” “pedophile,” or “child killer.” The accused are portrayed as monsters in the media and the minute we see them on the six o’clock news, we are quick to jump to the same conclusion. Regardless of whatever crime an individual may or may not have committed, every person is entitled to the same rights under the Constitution. This issue of fairness then becomes tantamount to justice.
Fairness is fundamental to the criminal justice system. When we lose ourselves in self-righteous hatred, we lose all objectivity. We forget the American tenet of “innocent until proven guilty” and the rights afforded by the 6th Amendment. All people possess the equal right to a fair trial. “Fairness” in the criminal justice system becomes difficult when the court of public opinion has ruled before the trial has begun.
Photo Credit Brian D. Wasom
We must separate ourselves from personal biases and emotions, allowing time for the system to work. While it is impossible to expect absolute impartiality of the jury and judge, it is reasonable to expect people put aside their preconceived notions and reserve judgment until the case is presented in court. The weight of justice depends upon us, the citizens who comprise the jury. We cannot allow the court of public opinion to trump the criminal justice system; we cannot allow justice to be corrupted by mob mentality.
Outrage and disgust do not invalidate the Constitution, nor have authority over justice. The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments establish the presumption of innocence; wishing a horrific fate upon the accused based upon the nature of the crime before considering all the evidence does a disservice not only to the accused, but also the victim.
Photo Credit: Ralph Losey
While realistically the ideal of a presumption of innocence may be near impossible in certain high profile cases, one must always attempt to entertain the possibility that the accused may not be guilty. When the freedom and life of the accused hangs in the balance, we must give that life all due consideration before making rash judgments.
There are three sides to every story: that of the prosecution, the defense, and the truth. As citizens, we must consider a preponderance of the evidence before attempting to divine the “truth.” There is a crucial difference between innocence and being found “not guilty”: the courts do not make moral judgments upon us. Twelve citizens will serve on the jury that will try the defendant and decide his fate: One day it could just as easily be us with our lives and futures at the mercy of twelve strangers. Before we condemn a fellow citizen, we must make sure we hear all sides of the story. To do anything less is to cheat the defendant out of his fair shot at justice; consequently, it weakens our faith in the justice system.
For further discussion of the impact of emerging social media on the law, check out this post by Brian D. Wassom
No comments:
Post a Comment