(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as passed by The United Nations, December 10, 1948

As a disclaimer, I’m not defending anyone in this post. If anything, I think they’re both guilty, I’m just pointing attention to the system.

The justice system in the United States is founded on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” However, I think that has changed recently into “guilty until proven innocent, and even then, we think your ass is guilty”. There have been a couple of recent cases where the accused was treated as if he were guilty, and asked to resign positions and admit guilt before having the fair trial the US Constitution guarantees him. The most high profile of these cases involved now former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. For those of you not in the know, Blagojevich was charged with abusing his position, with the most current accusation involving him auctioning off the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. He had been accused of asking potential candidates for donations or other favors to get appointed to the seat. (In Illinois, like most states, the Governor has the sole discretion to appoint someone to fill an empty Senate seat.) Immediately after being indicted, people were calling for his head. They asked him to resign his office, to allow someone else to appoint someone for the Senate, admit his wrongdoings, all based on an accusation. While this guy just looks shady, I find it troubling that if someone is merely accused of something, he’s treated as if guilty, and in some cases, which I’ll explain next, he’s thrown in jail. For being accused. Theoretically, a jilted ex-lover could accuse her ex boyfriend of rape, and then he would be thrown in jail, treated as a rapist, possibly forced to quit his job, be alienated in his community, ect., all based on an accusation. If the woman later recanted her story, the damage has already been done.

In a lesser known case in Palmdale, Raymond Lee Jennings was charged with the 2000 murder of 18 year old Michelle O’Keefe. After a lengthy investigation, Jennings, who was the security guard working at the parking lot the night O’Keefe was killed, and suspected of being responsible for her death since day one, was arrested in 2005 and has been tried twice on the murder charge. In each case, the jury came back deadlocked and a mistrial declared. While he’s probably guiltier than sin, the issue I have with his case is that despite two trials that have not reached a verdict, he has sat in jail since being arrested in December 2005, and to this day, is behind bars. Charged, but not convicted. I’m not familiar enough with the case to know why he’s behind bars, maybe he can’t make bail, but the injustice is that he’s being treated as guilty, despite never being convicted.

With the shift towards assuming guilt before being fairly tried, I really hope I don’t piss off someone, or “meet the description” and end up behind bars or ostracized in society for a crime I did not commit, but was merely accused of.