The legal presumption of innocence is a guaranteed right of the accused in America, but the general population tends to follow a different motto – the assumption of guilt.
Throughout the cases of the past decade, particularly those overblown by the media and general public, those accused are often assumed offenders. Even when the indicted are acquitted, they face a world of doubt by the skeptics of justice.
The American justice system is adversarial. In each case two arguments commence and the truth is decided based on the facts presented by both parties. If the justice system were inquisitorial, a system where the court takes part in the investigation, perhaps the skeptics would have a point.
It seems as though the majority of American citizens refuse to accept acquittal even when juries and judges deem the accused not guilty. The polls and arguments, which arise when a popular person who was accused is acquitted, miss the point.
Take one of the latest popularized criminal trials — the case of Casey Anthony. Anthony was accused of first-degree murder of her two-year-old daughter Caylee. Polls on news websites like CNN showed the majority of readers believed that Anthony was guilty and should not have been acquitted.
During Michael Jackson’s trial, news polls displayed the majority of readers’ beliefs that he was guilty as charged. Only after his death did this trend shift. The Amanda Knox case in Italy, recently resolved, concerned a similar controversy.
Both sides of the polls argue whether they think the accused committed the act. Each of the sides fails to acknowledge that they are both critiquing the system of justice that has evolved for centuries and has continued to operate acceptably. Those who agree with the decision the jury or judge made only agree because they believe the individual didn’t commit the crime.
The news networks asked the public the wrong question during these trials. The real issue is whether readers believe that our system of justice generally yields an acceptable result.
Students who haven’t been exposed to legal education can only recall the highly publicized, high-profile crimes that have popped up in the news over their lifetime. However, these cases are not indicative of the real world of criminal law.
The truth is, facts are investigated with painstaking care in these highly publicized cases. The truth is more likely to emerge in these cases than your general, local murder trials concerning a less affluent no-name who shot another less affluent no-name. In these cases, public defenders are sinking in case loads and don’t have the time to investigate every fact that could aid their defendant’s case.
The trend I find is that many people consider themselves better equipped to discern fact from fiction than the judge or jury selected for the trail. In reality, it would be a pity for these people — who judge before learning all the facts — to ever be on a jury. The presumption in American law is innocent until proven guilty, and individuals on a jury take great care to maintain this standard.
Some bias is unavoidable but determining a verdict based on media hype is unacceptable. American citizens, as potential jury members, should refrain from making decisions before they know the facts. They should have faith in our system of justice and recognize its unavoidable imperfections. But most important of all, they should avoid the assumption of guilt and preserve the presumption of innocence.
