EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
I was in San Francisco last week when the Grand Jury indictment against Barry Bonds was announced. I used to live in San Francisco, and I used to be a Giants fan, so I enjoyed being in the epicenter of the news reporting on this story. If you have been living under a rock and missed the news, Bonds was NOT indicted for taking steroids. His alleged crimes are for lying to the federal grand jury when he said he didn’t KNOWINGLY take steroids. The prosecutors claim that he had actual knowledge that he was using illegal steroids at the time he used them. His denials of the fact during a grand jury investigation of the Balco Company have resulted in four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I believe Bonds is guilty of knowingly taking steroids. World-class athletes know what they are taking and using. Their bodies are highly efficient mechanisms, and they don’t tinker with their physiology in ignorance. Also, the human body doesn’t bulk up like Bonds did without technical enhancements. I think the adjustable baseball cap was invented to accommodate the accelerating growth of his head. Okay, now my bias is on the table. I took great notice, and some offense, at the many people who say that it is wrong for us to express any negative opinion about Bonds at this juncture because “the law says that he is innocent until proven guilty.” Hey people, that is not what the law says. That rule only pertains to the burden proof at trial. But outside of the courtroom, the rule doesn’t apply. For instance, it there was a universal presumption of innocence at all times, we wouldn’t take a person caught in the act of bank robbery to jail upon his arrest; similarly, we wouldn’t make him post bail as a condition to be released from jail pending his trial. What about all of those times when a judge, at an arraignment hearing, denies bail and requires the criminal defendant to stay in jail before that trail. The judge certainly isn’t presuming the defendant to be innocent. This whole “presumption of innocence” got me thinking about my own sins. They are not of the steroid variety, as anyone who has seen me at the beach can attest. At first I thought that forgiveness of our sins puts us in a “presumed innocent” position with God. But it is better than that. The presumption of innocence can be overcome at trial by the weight of evidence. As far as my sin is concerned, I have more than enough weight to tip the scale drastically to the “guilty” verdict. In a trial, the weight of my sin would rebut the presumption of innocence. God gives us something much better than a “presumption of innocence” from our sins. And we have something better than mere immunity from prosecution (which means no penalty but still recognizes the existence of our transgressions). As far as God is concerned, His forgives us put us in the position of beginning declared innocent. It is as if we have never done any wrong. Not only are our sins forgiven, but they are forgotten. Our sin rap sheet is wiped clean. Christ offers us a much better deal than Bonds gets with the judicial system. Whatever the outcome of his situation, it will be considered “justice.” The outcome of the forgiveness of my sins can only be called “grace.” |
Comments
Brilliant! I enjoyed reading your professional assessment of the Barry Bonds case. But then the way you related "presumed innocent" to the big Judge in the sky, well, that was just outstanding. Keep 'em coming!
Hi Bruce,
I found this interesting, and haven't really thought about it before. You said:
>>For instance, it there was a universal presumption of innocence at all times, we wouldn’t take a person caught in the act of bank robbery to jail upon his arrest; similarly, we wouldn’t make him post bail as a condition to be released from jail pending his trial. What about all of those times when a judge, at an arraignment hearing, denies bail and requires the criminal defendant to stay in jail before that trail. The judge certainly isn’t presuming the defendant to be innocent.>>
You're right that we're not treating these people like perfectly innocent people; they don't have all the rights and privileges that I do, for example. On the other hand, we're not treating them like guilty people. For example, we don't take a person caught in the act of bank robbery straight to a maximum security prison to serve 20 years (or whatever people get for bank robbery). We put the suspected bank robber in prison after the arrest and during the trial, but we don't take this to be an act of punishment, retribution, or rehabilitation. Rather, we temporarily restrict their rights because there is some evidence that they are guilty of a crime (they are "suspects"), and we're entering them into the justice system to find out if they are guilty.
So we don't treat people as perfectly innocent or perfectly guilty after the arrest and during the trial, while they are suspects. Does it follow from this that people are not "presumed innocent until proven guilty"? That is, does it follow from the fact that some of a person's rights have been curtailed that they are not presumed innocent until proven guilty?
It seems that someone could resist your inference here, if he or she were inclined to think that a person is either guilty or innocent, one or the other. These people who have their rights temporarily curtailed are not being treated as if they were guilty; they are not presumed to be guilty. Therefore, their treatment must be consistent with their being presumed to be innocent.
However, I think the truth of the matter is this: there are three states a person could be in with respect to the justice system: innocent, guilty, and on trial. (Maybe "awaiting trial" should count as a fourth, but I'll subsume it under "on trial.") People receive treatment appropriate for each state; we have various rights and privileges appropriate for each state. So when someone is arrested as a suspect in a crime, he's not being treated like an innocent person or a guilty person. He's being treated like a person "on trial."
But the claim you're contesting isn't that we are TREATED as innocent until proven guilty. The claim is that we are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. When someone is receiving treatment appropriate for a person on trial, it's true that his treatment is different from someone who is innocent or guilty (in the view of the justice system). However, were all the evidence to disappear, the person would be released. I think that's enough to support the claim that we are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty, even if we're not TREATED innocent until proven guilty.
So, to sum up, the observation that people are not TREATED innocent until proven guilty is perfectly compatible with their being PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. If someone were to claim that we should TREAT people as innocent until proven guilty, your observations would be a compelling objection. But if someone merely reminds us that we should PRESUME someone is innocent until proven guilty (and that therefore we shouldn't TREAT them like a guilty person), pointing out that we don't TREAT them as innocent until proven guilty is not a compelling objection.
This was a rather rough, meandering comment, but I hope the point is somewhat clear. What do you think?
tamb --
You are too deep for me. But let me restate my position so there is no confusion, because we might end up violently agreeing with each other.
My objection is with the people who misuse and misapply the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" principle. That only applies at trial. In our judicial system, it starts and ends in the courtroom. To restrict a person's freedom in any way (which we do with most accused suspects) is to classify that person as something less than innocent (whether with a rebuttable presumption or not). So, obviously, we, as a society, are not saying that the accused is innocent. But likewise, we have haven't said he is guilty. Thus, until there is a judicial determination, the person is in a state of limbo, living with restricted freedoms (not innocent) and yet not punished for the crime (not guilty). I think is is what you refer to with your "three states" reference.
My gripe is that this judicial principle for placement of the burden of proof at trial should not be misapplied beyond its appropriate reach. In our public discussion and analysis of a situation, such as Bonds, we should not consider ourselves to be under a compulsion to suspend rational thought, logic, and observational evidence because we've heard of some notion that a person should be "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Believe me, if I have a 5 year-old daughter and my next door neighbor is arrested for child molestation, I'm going to presume him to be guilty in all "three states" -- (1) while he is "on trial," (2) if he is tried and found guilty, and (3) even if he is tried and found innocent. In this scenario, as a lawyer and father, I would consider the presumption of innocence to be an appropriate principle in the courtroom, but I'd not risk the safety of my daughter on its application outside of the courtroom.
Hi Bruce,
You said:
>>we should not consider ourselves to be under a compulsion to suspend rational thought, logic, and observational evidence because we've heard of some notion that a person should be "presumed innocent until proven guilty.">>
I agree. But do people really think that this dictum requires them to suspend rational thought, logic, and observational evidence? I always just took it as a warning not to jump to conclusions, to condemn this person before the trial, to treat him or her as guilty before all the evidence was heard and both sides made their cases. For that reason I thought it was a dictum designed to encourage rational thought, logic, and observational evidence: "don't reach a conclusion until all the evidence is in." That seems rational to me.
You also said:
>>Believe me, if I have a 5 year-old daughter and my next door neighbor is arrested for child molestation, I'm going to presume him to be guilty>>
I think that's a good idea, and I'd do the same thing. However, I think it's clear that in this case we wouldn't necessarily believe that the neighbor is guilty (since we haven't heard all the evidence). Rather, we're just doing a simple risk analysis. There is some chance that the neighbor is guilty, and is a child molester. So there is some chance that my child is in danger. If I treat the neighbor as guilty, the danger to my child goes down dramatically; if I treat him as anything less than guilt, the danger to my child increases dramatically. So, I will treat the neighbor as guilty. In that sense, I don't "presume" the neighbor to be innocent.
But when it comes to rational belief, I'd still take the dictum "innocent until proven guilty" to hold. I'm going to wait until all the evidence is in before deciding what to believe, but not how to act (in this case).
See, I told you that you are too deep for me.
Actually, the misapplication of the dictum does have a chilling effect on discussions. At least in the circles that I read, watch and listen to. Perhaps not in your philosophical circles, but that may be due to your group being more accustomed to rational thought, logic, and observational evidence.
And, I agree with your "what to believe" vs. "how to act" assessment. But from my limited viewpoint, "how I act" has more ramifications that "what I believe."
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for this great blog! All I could think after reading it was how thankful I am for God's grace. So thankful.