Innocent till proven guiltyPosted: July 18, 2008
There is a reason for everything.
There is a reason why I think the way I do, and you the way you do. There is a reason why we think differently, or similarly. There is a reason why we take different stands, or none at all.
But there is a universal understanding that everyone is “innocent till proven guilty”. I believe, there is also a reason why this is so. It is, after all, quite impossible to prove that something did not happen, as opposed to proving that something DID happen, except for cases of proving one’s absence at the scene of crime, otherwise known as an alibi.
How do I prove that I did not steal something? It is for you to prove that I did. I cannot prove that I did not touch something, it is for you to show fingerprint proof, or other such proof, that I did. I cannot prove that I did not kill someone, it is for you to prove that I did.
Hence why, “innocent till proven guilty”.
I believe that is also the fundamental reason why defence is always the last to present its case. Because it is for the prosecutor to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that I have indeed committed what it is that I am charged of. Defence need only throw doubt on the prosecutor’s case.
There is a phrase, “There are always two sides to a coin”.
But I argue, we can only see one side of the coin at any one time. We cannot possibly see both sides at the same time. Therefore, I think it equally difficult for a person to be totally objective.
Both defence and prosecution have to argue their side of the coin. The judge listens to both sides, and in the process of coming to a verdict, this coin has to be flipped over and over again to allow the judge to have all the information needed to make a decision deemed fair, and after careful deliberation.
The blogosphere is no court. There is no judge. There are only accounts from various people on the way they see their side of the coin.
Susan said in her post:
I hear alot of people talking about neutrality, of being un-bias..
If I may, I think it is highly impossible to remain neutral. At most, one can be objective in wanting to see both sides of the coin, to listen to both sides of the story. But even as a judge has to make a verdict at the end of a hearing, one must admit that after hearing both sides of the story, one has to come up with a conclusion as to where they stand.
That one decides to see both sides doesn’t mean that one doesn’t make a decision at the end as to whom to believe more. Perception is an underlying nature of humankind.
I refer to what Mukhriz said in Parliament the day Anwar was arrested:
“I believe Datuk Seri Anwar did. Certainly he did commit this ‘keji’ act.”
That is what Mukhriz believes. That is his perception. But he also used the word “certainly”.
At the same time, it also shows that he does not take to heart the understanding that everyone is “innocent till proven guilty”.
That the Opposition defends Anwar, I see no wrong. There is nothing wrong in defending the accused, because he is to be assumed as “innocent till proven guilty”.
But for them to claim that this is a “political conspiracy”, then it becomes a burden on their part to prove that it is. Because the government cannot prove that they are not involved in a “political conspiracy”. Only the accuser can provide proof that there is substance to their claim.
I personally don’t believe that Anwar has committed sodomy. My line of contention is quite similar to that of John Lee’s argument HERE. I believe him innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed the crime that which he is accused of.
But before we throw this case out of court, let there be transparent investigations. The already tainted judiciary, along with the recent reports against the AG and IGP on fabrication of evidence do not bode well.
Anwar’s unwillingness to give blood samples for DNA tests may be slightly deterring for a smooth investigation. But his reasons are not unwarranted. His fears are not unsubstantiated. The lack of trust and transparency in the judiciary and the way investigations are conducted did not start yesterday.
*I am not well-versed in law, so if there are any discrepancies, I stand corrected.