'Innocent until proven guilty' is going out of fashion

I had, until about 7:43 a.m. on Sunday, no idea what to write; it's been, for the last fortnight or so, virtually news-dead in the world - no new wars, famines, genocides, depressions, etc.

Then I accidentally happened on an editorial in the Arizona Daily Star from Feb. 19. "Refusing to name rape victims takes press conscience too far," Sidney Zion's headline reads.

Hallelujah, I thought. I felt like Pat Riley must have when he got Jamal Mashburn in a trade for three sub-par talents: I got down on my knees and thanked God.

Zion, a columnist for the New York Daily News, argues that the practice of disclosing the name, age, occupation and horoscope of alleged rapists in toto while protecting with the same blanket the accuser "turns the presumption of innocence on its head."

He cites a recent case at West Point in which a male cadet was wrongly accused by a female cadet. The former was, despite flimsy evidence, taken to trial and acquitted. The latter is on leave, "and on the leave of the media," as Zion puts it. The male cad et will have that rape charge hanging over his head for the rest of his career, though a military trial found him not guilty. The media protects the identity of the accuser out of a sense of conscience, reasoning that the poor woman has been through enoug h, she doesn't need a lot of hassle.

Implicit in that reasoning is the presumption of guilt on the part of the accused.

Nor is this zeitgeist limited to the media, nor to rape trials. Ted Kaczynski, whether or not he is acquitted, will always have an invisible sign that reads "Unabomber" hanging over his head. Timothy McVeigh has to wear a flak jacket any time he leaves hi s cell to go to the courthouse. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, but regardless of the indignation of the African American community, the nation at large is pretty sure he's guilty as sin.

Not that I condone criminal activity in any way; nor do I advocate lenient sentences for those found guilty of horrendous crimes including, but not limited to rape, homicide, mass murder and wearing bell bottoms.

I'm just a little stuck on that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. It's the basis for half of the Bill of Rights, and, theoretically, our legal system. It's also a fast-fading myth in modern American culture, but I'm a reactionary.

It is important, I think, to apply a little empathy to the situation: If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you prefer that the burden of proof hang over the head of the prosecution?

The principle of presumed innocence is in turn based on one of those silly Enlightenment ideas, something about the inherent goodness of Man. That idea is also the basis for such neat gimmicks as mass suffrage, equality before the law, and free speech. Oh , and the whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing Tom Jefferson paraphrased from John Locke - how could I forget that one?

Perhaps the cynic in me hasn't yet finished off the Romantic, because I'd like to believe in these ideas and their potential even now. We cannot allow these cornerstones of our civilization to erode, or we risk becoming like so many societies that we have condemned over the years.

Putting the power of determination of guilt and innocence into the hands of the media and the masses at large, without the benefit of a trial, takes that power out of the hands of a jury. The whim of the mob becomes law. No one likes jury duty, but I for one would far rather be tried by a jury of my peers than by Tom Brokaw or Jay Leno.

Chris Badeaux is the Wildcat Opinions Editor, and is innocent of tact until someone proves him guilty. His column, 'Cynic on Parade,' appears every other Monday.

By Chris Badeaux (columnist)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 10, 1997