Death on the RIver - John Wilson, 2009, Orca Book Publishers, United States - p.68
"This blade?" Like lightning, Billy whips out his knife, steps over and holds it under the man's nose.
"I didn't mean nothin'," the man says, drawing back. "Don't care what the fool died of."
"No," Billy says, "we got to clear this up. I ain't about to have folks whisperin' that me and Jake come by this place foul.. I'll make a deal. YOu check the body and if you find a knife hole, you can have my blade, and me and Jake'll go and find ourselves another shelter. If'n you don't find no hole, you shut up."
"It's okay," the man says nervously. "I believe you."
"But othrs might not now that you've put the suspicion in their minds. Check."
Reluctantly, the man goes over to the body and checks it for knife wounds. The rest of us watch in silence. I'm remembering that Billy was gone when I woke in the night.
"Aint nothin' there," the man says, straightening up.
"Must've died in his sleep like this fella says."
Billy nods. "Ain't good to have distrust 'tween neighbors. Now we can all look out few each other."
"Sure," the man says.
Billy goes to the body and deftly slices off the brass buttons from the dead man's jacket. He tosses one over to our neighbor -
"This blade?" Like lightning, Billy whips out his knife…."
I am reminded of that famous Crocodile Dundee scene where Mr. Dundee comically brandishes his machete to compare with a New York gangster's (or is that gangsta?) flick knife. Here it is, brilliantly reenacted by some Lego pieces.
"…others might not [believe you] now that you've put the suspicion in their minds."
People are quick to judge on little actual evidence. Even after a person's innocence has been proven, he/she remain in thrall to a previous accusation. The technologies of instantaneous information and news aid the abrogation of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies), the presumption of innocence. It is a fallacy to argue that this is a recent trend though. In Dickens' classic 'Great Expectations', published in 1860-1861, the character of Mr. Jaggers, a London lawyer, is dramatically introduced through his public chastising of Mr.Wopsle for his ignorance and prejudice in relation to a reported trial.
"Do you know, or do you not know, that the law of England supposes every man to be innocent, until he is proved - proved - to be guilty?… And now I ask you what you say to the conscience of that man who, with that passage before his eyes, can lay his head upon his pillow after having pronounced a fellow-creature guilty, unheard?" (P.134, 135)
Concluding a person's guilt, especially when a heinous crime has been perpetrated, is easy to do. Declaring blame quickly brings closure and quells outrage, making it a primal reaction; we seek immediate justice and vengeance. The trial of Dominic Strauss-Kahn provides a salient example. What he has been accused of is utterly heinous and if proven guilty he must be punished to the full extend of that land's law. But first, his guilt must be proven - beyond reasonable doubt.
Suspending judgement is no easy feat, especially when it concerns crimes of great turpitude. The price of living in a democratic society, where the rule of law is designed to maximise people's safety and freedoms is to presume a persons innocence. Maybe instead of seeing at as having to prove a person's criminality, we can view it as accepting first a person's virtues and assume their inherent good, until the contrary can be proved in all totality.
Also in regard to the 'suspicion in minds' bit, I am tempted to include a YouTube video of a particular Elvis song, but will be contented by the jingle ringing in your head right about now.
No comments:
Post a Comment