Logic and the Presumption of Innocence
I've been meaning to make this point for a while, but I see Michael Kinsley has beaten me to it. In his recent column at Slate, Kinsley writes:
This is especially true in cases involving elected officials (and their staff) acting in their official capacities. In a democracy, elected officials are judged by the voters, and voters are not restricted in the same way juries are; they are entitled to consider any relevant information in reaching their conclusions. It's time for the stonewalling to end. The President and the Vice President in particular owe the American people an explanation.
Scooter Libby is not innocent until provenI agree with all of this. The presumption of innocence is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in our legal system. The phrase refers to a legal presumption, not a logical one. All it means is that the defendant must be treated, for certain legal purposes, as if he were innocent. It says nothing whatsoever about what a rational human being should conclude based on the relevant facts. In other words, it's not a rule of logic. For example, someone who is caught on tape committing murder is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean that intelligent people must reserve judgment or refrain from exercising their logical faculties.
guilty. This is true in several senses, but
let's start with the one that many observers
believe is undervalued in our hurly-burly
world of today. It's called reality. Libby may
be innocent, or he may be guilty. We will try
to reach a conclusion about that in a trial,
which of necessity lies in the future. But the
events that his innocence or guilt turn on are
all in the past. . . .
The presumption of innocence is a conceit of
the judicial system. That doesn't make it a bad
thing. In fact it is a good thing—one of the
ornaments of free and democratic society. The
law, and especially the criminal law, is full of
conceits that serve justice, although they
require participants to make believe various
things. The rules of evidence, for example.
Anyone who has watched a TV courtroom
drama, from Perry Mason to Law & Order, has
heard a judge declare that "the jury will
disregard" something no one seeking the truth
would disregard. That's because the judicial
process has other goals besides seeking the
truth.
One of those other goals is protecting the
innocent. The law bends over backward to avoid
a wrongful conviction. That's why it excludes
certain kinds of evidence, and that's why the
standard for conviction is guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt." In a civil lawsuit, the
standard is generally "more probable than not."
Whatever probably happened, as best as the
judge or jury can determine, is taken to have
happened. But in a criminal trial there is a
whole range of probability that is off limits: It
probably happened, but not beyond a
reasonable doubt. . . .
In refusing to discuss any aspect of the CIA-leak
mess, the White House is exploiting an American
mania for judicial process that President Bush
has so often criticized. . . .
As for the CIA-leak investigation, there are
more than enough facts, unchallenged or beyond
reasonable dispute, to raise questions
that President Bush and others should have to
answer. These questions do not depend on a
final judicial resolution about one person's guilt
or innocence, and they shouldn't have to
wait for it.
This is especially true in cases involving elected officials (and their staff) acting in their official capacities. In a democracy, elected officials are judged by the voters, and voters are not restricted in the same way juries are; they are entitled to consider any relevant information in reaching their conclusions. It's time for the stonewalling to end. The President and the Vice President in particular owe the American people an explanation.
posted by A.L. at 11:49 PM
3 Comments:
The view point represented in this post really shocked me. The idea that the liberals are making up the facts as they go in this case is not what is surprising, however. What is surprising and somewhat un-nerving is the fact that the author is throwing out one of the most basic rights of each American in the judicial system...the presumption of innocence. The fact that a liberal would discount this is truly astonishing.
To think that , “The presumption of innocence is a conceit of
the judicial system” is totally without merit. This fundamental right was written to prevent exactly what the left wing politicians and the main stream media is trying to do. If Libby did not have this presumption of innocence, he would have been convicted in the court and in the press long ago without the need for a trial.
“As for the CIA-leak investigation, there are more than enough facts, unchallenged or beyond reasonable dispute, to raise questions that President Bush and others should have to answer. These questions do not depend on a final judicial resolution about one person's guilt
or innocence, and they shouldn't have to wait for it.” This statement precludes that the author knows more than the average citizen and that he is privy to facts not publicly known. The liberals are so caught up in this contrived scandal that they are now taking on the roll of investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. If the facts are not in evidence, they just make them up. I guess the presumption of innocence is a good thing. It protects us from ourselves more than anything else.
Respectfully, DJ, I think you totally missed the point. Neither Kinsley nor I were suggesting that the presumption of innocence is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. We were just saying it is misunderstood. The presumption refers to the burden of proof in a criminal trial. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the rules of logic and inference. Nevertheless, pundits and politicians tend to invoke the presumption in settings in which it makes no sense. Yes, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innonence in the court room, and that is a good thing. But in the meantime, the rest of us don't have to close our eyes to the facts. There is more than enough information already out there to warrant explanations from Cheney and Bush, particularly if they are not in legal jeopardy themselves. They should not be allowed to hide behind a legal contruct that has no relevance outside of a limited context.
Well said, Anonymous Liberal. How can we get that concept out to the masses in simple terms?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home