apologist

Presumption of Innocence

One of the phrases that the apologists like to throw around is "Innocent until proven Guilty". Apparantly they are under the impression that until a jury convicts Mr Jackson, anyone who believes he is guilty should keep their mouths shut. They almost invariably try to justify this attitude by claiming that it's a constitutional thing. Here's what the constitution actually says:

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

NOWHERE does it state that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He is entitled to an impartial jury--that's it. Everyone else is perfectly entitled to decide for themselves whether they believe that Mikey is guilty or not.

And according to the first amendment I am entitled to express that opinion. I am allowed to explain my reasons for holding that opinion, and I am allowed to defend that opinion from criticism or refutation. My doing so in no way infringes on Jackson's right to due process, and will have no effect on his trial.

This is not so suggest that Presumption of Innocence does not exist. It very definately does and is a very important foundation of the legal system. My objection is to those who (intentionally or not) mis-use it to stifle debate, confuse issues, and support their apologist agenda.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article (it can be found in its entirity here;

"What does "Innocent until proven guilty" mean? I submit to you it means that a person will not suffer the due penalty of law, enacted with the full force of the people, until that standard of proof has been met in a court of criminal law.

Period.

I submit that this rule was obviously never meant to constrain us from making our own private judgements. Finding a person guilty in court does not constrain us from asserting, as a private individual, that we think the trial came to the wrong result. The same goes for a finding of "not guilty", or a possible crime yet untried. "

The 1993 case and Presumption of Innocence As a corollary to Presumption of Innocence, another refrain constantly heard in various forums is: "Michael Jackson was never convicted in 1993, so he is presumed to be innocent." Utter pish-tosh. Jackson was not convicted, but neither was he cleared. The accusations never went to trial (and there are approximately 25 million reasons for this). Since it never went to trial, there is no presumption of innocence, and people are entitled to believe whatever they wish about the extent of Jackson's guilt in that case. Period.

Here's a summary:

1) The Jury (including alternates) is required to maintain a presumption of innocence. They are the only ones.
2) The Jury is required to base their decision on the evidence that is presented in court. They are required to ignore all other information, evidence or analysis.
3) The verdict is a group opinion based solely on the jury's interpretation of that (possibly incomplete, ambiguous or inconclusive) evidence. It is binding on the court, not to anyone else.
4) The judgement does not necessarily reflect the jury's belief of a defendent's guilt or innocence (i.e. whether he actually committed the crime he's accused of), but rather whether the prosecution's case was plausible and credible.
5) The defence does not have to "prove" that their client didn't commit the act that he is accused of. They merely have to prove that there is a plausible alternative interpretion of the evidence. This is called reasonable doubt. Again, it does not mean the defendent did not commit the act, merely that he might not have, or that someone else may have. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. This is what precisely Presumption of Innocence means, and all that it means.
6) Therefore it is entirely possible that the jury can be wrong, in the sense that a person who is guilty can go free: O.J. Simpson for example. It is equally possible for an innocent man to be convicted: Timothy Evans and Richard Hauptmann spring to mind.
7) Given that the verdict is merely the opinion of 12 unexceptional people, then my opinion is every bit as valid as theirs in every way EXCEPT as it pertains to whether Mr Jackson will be set free or punished. As is everyone else's.
8) If for whatever reason the case fails to go to trial, all bets are off and Presumption of Innocence applies to no-one (except where curbed by the laws of slander and libel, obviously).

Presumption of Innocence for one= Presumption of Innocence for all.

If, as the Jackson supporters insist, the concept of presumption of innocence should be taken out of it's legal context and applied to the population at large, then they have an obligation to observe the same standards that they try to force on everyone else, for instance(s):

1) The family is engaged in extortion (they have even been charged, let alone convicted. Where's the presumption of innocence?)

2) The family has a history of extortion and theft (again, they were never charged)

3) The Chandlers were also extortionists (in that case they actually were investigated--and cleared. Not that the Jacko supporters will accept that)

3) Tom Sneddon has committed prosecutorial misconduct (again, where's the conviction? Since there isn't one, he's entitled to presumption of innocence).

4) The police manhandled and brutalized Jackson during his arrest (originally there was no proof, since then it's been investigated and dismissed.)

Go to back the the INDEX

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws