Everyone
knows that proof in a criminal trial must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But,
does this mean that as individuals we are expected to suspend all personal
judgment about a matter until the allegations have been proved in a court of
law? I submit, your honour, that such a burden of proof in personal matters is just silly. In
other words, the court of public opinion has a much lower standard of proof. And
so it should.
Criminal justice
is a refined system. The accused is presumed innocent. There are delicate rules
about what testimony can be considered evidence and what must be left out
because it is simply too prejudicial to the accused. The burden of proof rests
on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. All of these refinements are
because criminal justice is the relationship of the state to the individual.
Collectively, we are really picky and protective about how we want our
government to treat us individually. Collectively, we abhor the thought of the
state rounding up innocents and putting them in prison because they might be the perpetrator of a crime (or
even because they are probably the
perpetrator).
Often in
the weeks since CBC fired Jian Ghomeshi and he responded with his Facebook
defense I have heard, “You have no right to judge until the allegations are
proven in a court of law.” Or, “They are just allegations, they have not been
proven.” The implication is that we ought to hold one and another to the same standard
of proof as criminal justice. This, to be blunt, is ridiculous.
My son takes
his backpack when he visits friends – I am pretty sure he is drinking beer
underage. My friend has stopped playing in our weekly soccer game, he is
wearing a lot of cologne, and he is rarely home with his wife – I am pretty
sure he is having an affair. A guy I just met has an opportunity to share with
me and he would like to come over to my house on Friday night for coffee – I am
pretty sure it’s a multi-level marketing scheme, probably Amway. The point is
that to function as a person – as a parent, a friend, a partner, a business
owner, or whatever – you never wait until the criminal burden of proof is established.
If you did, your life, like the criminal justice system, would move too slowly.
You would be frozen in indecision for months at a time. Not to mention that
when I ask my new friend if it is Amway, he will not be under oath and will not
suffer fear of eternal damnation for lying (which he should for pitching me on
Amway in the first place).
I am not
sure what standard of proof I apply to my daily decisions. It seems more akin to
the civil standard of proof, namely, “on a balance of probability.” In other
words if something is probably the
case, I am going to assume that it is the case until more evidence sways me
otherwise. This is more like the standard of proof in science, than criminal law.
If the Jian
Ghomeshi saga featured just one single accuser then I might be prone to believe
Jian’s story of rough sex and a jilted girlfriend seeking revenge. If it were just
one single accuser then Jian’s story would be believable. His story might be
the most reasonable explanation of events. And, I might have accepted it as
true until some more evidence swayed me otherwise (indeed, this is what many
did).
But, there are eleven women and one man who accuse Jian of varying
degrees of assault or harassment. I am incredulous that these twelve people
have all made up their individual accusations. I am also incredulous that the
media have somehow created these accusations. Thus, I am swayed.
I don’t
like Jian Ghomeshi. He disgusts me. And, I am reasonably entitled to that opinion.
Will the
state put him in prison? That’s a different standard of proof, as it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment