Guilty until proven innocent

seems to be the way we now approach things.

The criminal law in this country is based, among other things, on an assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty. It is an assumption which is supposed to protect innocent people from being wrongly convicted. 

Yes of course it is not perfect but, at least for most of the time, it works that way. Recently something seems to have turned this around in the media. We have more than one story suggesting that someone is guilty of an offence even before the matter goes before the courts. 

There is absolute glee in the media when a former prince of the realm is allegedly guilty of a range of offences. Oooh he has been "arrested" and then "oh, but he hasn't been charged yet - never mind it is only a matter of time". That's the "big" story I suppose. Another peer of the realm has been arrested? Oh, more "good" news - for the media, for us to gloat over. 

What about some of the other stories going around. Someone in the sporting field is accused of rape. He's a popular figure. It can't be true can it? Oh, wait a moment...look, he's "someone's" son.

Little has been said however about some other very public figures who might also have been "guilty by association".  Apparently they are not newsworthy or cannot possibly be conveniently guilty of anything. Well, that's nice I suppose.  

Then there is the public servant who did their very best to sort out another alleged rape issue. They gave the alleged victim every possible assistance and the assistance was even acknowledged only to have it later thrown back in their face for the benefit of an opposing party in an upcoming election. (Yes, some of you will know to whom I am referring to but let's leave it there.)

Many years ago I met a man who had spent time in prison. He was innocent, indeed had simply been a passer by, but innocent people do sometimes get incarcerated. He was only released when a police officer was dying and admitted that he had lied in court. He had lied to cover up the wrongdoing of his sergeant. The sergeant himself had not given evidence. He had gone on up the ranks. The innocent man was released but the sergeant avoided any consequences for technical legal reasons. It was a long time ago now but the innocent man, a mere unfortunate bystander who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, was stained for life. Many people believed, still believe, he "must have been guilty of something".  It would not matter how often they were told he was innocent they would want to believe he was guilty of something. Human nature has a tendency to believe the worst rather than the best.

The same might be said of the "ISIS brides". I was told the story yesterday of one of them who, according to her once-friend, "was just doing what she was told to do". The story has come to me third hand. It is undoubtedly embellished but, if true, then is the once girl, now woman, guilty or innocent of supporting a terrorist group? How can we know? 

We have an election coming up in this state. Although the incumbent government is expected to be re-elected "in a landslide" there are all sorts of "nasties" flying around in the media. Accusations are being made. We are being told they are accusations and that they may not be true or even that they actually not true. They are however enough to do the damage. They are deliberately designed to do the damage. 

Guilty until proven innocent is not how it is intended to be but how useful it is if you want to do someone harm.