Innocent Until Proven Guilty
By Anthony Gregory • Thursday July 7, 2011 1:07 PM PDT • 21 Comments
In a criminal trial, the whole weight of the state is pit against an accused individual. The consequence of a guilty verdict for a serious offense is generally time in prison—a dehumanizing government cage. For capital cases, the punishment can be the ultimate penalty: death.
Putting an innocent person to death is a crime of infinite significance regarding that one person. It is as morally degenerate as any other form of homicide, if not worse as it seduces the society at large through its pretensions of legitimacy into accepting the killing of innocent people. Imprisoning an innocent person is as severe as kidnapping an innocent person. A culture tolerant of a government that does such a thing is basking in some of the greatest moral depravities. It should be regarded as a great evil for an individual to kidnap or kill an innocent person. For the state to do so is at least as bad, but it risks multiplying the evil of the individual act through the false sanctification and widespread societal acceptance of great immorality.
An ethical code that countenances incarceration of the innocent, even in a slim minority of cases, is no bulwark whatever against the ghastliest of institutional oppressions. A people who are not profoundly and unwaveringly outraged by the false incarceration of even a single soul are unfit to be a free people. It is often said that it’s better to let ten guilty people free than leave one innocent man behind bars. The ratio should be much higher, for it is metaphysically possible for the guilty to find justice outside of the U.S. legal system, but it is impossible for the innocent to find it within. Thus is the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” of unparalleled importance. There is no word adequate to describe how unacceptable it should be to a civilized people to see an innocent man caged. Every single legal bias should be given to ensure that the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed the crime before he be deprived of his liberty or life. If the standard is any lower than that, the prosecution will not only convict innocents in the courtroom, but use the threat of false conviction to obtain plea bargains that unfairly rob the innocent of their freedom. This happens every day in America, because jurors do not take the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” nearly far enough–they assume if the police and prosecutors say something is true, it is true. They assume all the evidence that would demonstrate the client’s potential innocence has been shown them. They assume the state wouldn’t even accuse a person unless it was damn sure the person is guilty. There is an immense literature proving this is not the case. Prosecutors and police frequently lie. But even if they didn’t, even if every last one of them had the moral constitution of an angel sent from heaven, the possibility of honest error should compel jurors to give every single benefit of the doubt to the defense, and to refrain from a guilty vote unless the prosecution really made it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. Too much hinges on the importance of this principle even to consider casting it aside
When Cory Maye was released after a decade behind bars last week, few took notice. Several years of his time imprisoned was on death row. Yet under the common sense principles of right and wrong, he had done nothing wrong. His home was invaded in the night by police on a drug bust. They were at his duplex to arrest his neighbor over marijuana. When Maye heard the intruders, logically thinking they were burglars, he ran to his daughter’s room and fired at the invaders. He shot a police officer who died.
For this act of self-defense—at the very worst a completely honest accident—Maye was originally sent to die. Thanks to the journalism of Radley Balko and other interested citizens, he was taken off death row, given an opportunity for a second trial, and he was offered a plea agreement: submit to manslaughter and time served. Maybe didn’t want to risk losing another minute from his family. He admitted to having committed a crime that, strictly speaking, he wasn’t guilty of. This is all too common in the criminal justice system.
This is the kind of legal outrage that occurs all the time in America. Maye will never get his ten years back. He was robbed of the most precious of life’s gifts—liberty—for which there is no possible restitution. That he came away with his life was only due to the luck of circumstance. Every American should be aware of the injustice inflicted upon this innocent man and recognize how common it is, and this case should have dominated the news these last couple weeks.
Instead, most eyes were drawn to another legal case, the one of Casey Anthony, who on Tuesday was acquitted of murdering her daughter. Many in the media are outraged. Marcia Clark, the prosecutor who failed to win a conviction against OJ Simpson in 1995, assures us she would have voted to convict Casey Anthony. I’m sure she would have.
But the prosecution in the Anthony case did not make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Americans should feel a bit safer and freer when a jury does not succumb to the hysteria of the lynch mob and convict someone based only on a little circumstantial evidence, the fact that she lied to the police, and other indictments of her character. It means there are still some people out there who understand how grave it is to damn someone to incarceration or death without 100% certainty that the person is guilty. It means some people out there actually understand the concept of justice. Instead, many Americans are horrified that this is the way our system works (at its most ideal): to occasionally free those who might be guilty so as to ensure against damning the innocent. I shudder at the thought of my compatriots who are outraged when the jury correctly finds against the prosecution, and look the other way as innocent men like Cory Maye are robbed of a decade of their lives, barely escaping death at the hands of an overzealous criminal justice system.
Tags: Criminal Justice, Law, Morality, Natural Law, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, The State, Utilitarianism 
My aging parents and their friends seem to agree with you. With the exception of myself, everyone I know my age (personally not on the internet) think Casey Anthony was obviously guilty and should be executed. That doesn’t bode well for the future.
steve | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
I, too, think Casey Anthony is guilty. Guilty of what? I’m not sure. But before they charge her & put her in prison, it would be nice to find out if the child was murder & of WHAT! Reasonable Doubt. Casey will get what’s coming to her. Maybe not right now, but it will.
Margaret | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
I think Casey was guilty of killing Caylee. It may have been some type of accident(not the pool) I think she didn’t have a sitter and wanted to go out so she drugged the baby and put duck tape over her mouth and put her in the trunk of her car, not meaning too Caylee died. when she went to get her out of the trunk she found her dead and freaked out. She was scared to death so she told all these lies to cover up the death. Should she die for this no, should she spend time in jail for all she did Yes. This is just my oppinon.
beverly stackman | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
I disagree wholeheartedly. A society such as ours must depend on people following the rules. When they do not, we need to confine them until we assure ourselves that we made a mistake. In the case of ca, we confined her because she “lost” her baby. In the end, we found out that she killed her baby. There is no other explanation. If the police agree with the verdict than they should be looking for the killer.
joanne | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
I am still quite a bit torn about the verdict. I understand that the verdict is a relief, but at the same time it’s quite possible that she is actually guilty. Either way I would never want the state to to adjudicate any affairs, including this one. Yet at least this way people can decide for themselves whether or not they want anything to do with Anthony. Perhaps I’m cold-blooded, but I would be fine with boycotting any business that hires her as an employee.
Neil | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
Wow Mr. Gregory you are producing some really fantastic articles recently! To be fair, you might have always be doing so and I just only now became privy to it! Keep up the amazing work!
Robert Fellner | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
‘Putting an innocent person to death is a crime of infinite significance regarding that one person. It is as morally degenerate as any other form of homicide’
I wasn’t sure who you’re referring to, Caylee Anthonty or abortion in general.
Let’s just call Caylee a victim of later term abortion.
Jack | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
With pieces like your one on leftism and this one above, I’m becoming quite the regular reader of yours. Well done, Anthony!
Brandon Harnish | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
You are absolutely right, the imprisonment, or worse, execution of an innocent person is one of the worst crimes society can commit against the individual, and greater safeguards are needed. The number of people who have been wrongly imprisoned and freed through DNA evidence has grown a lot in recent years.
bill the plumber in cleveland | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
Thanks, Robert!!
Anthony Gregory | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
I fully agree with you Anthony. I’ve been on juries and I have been a witness. Both times the DA attempted to sway my testimony to their benefit (which were truth mixed with lies) I was told by a PDO and ADA that if I didn’t testify to the “facts” they had given me I would be charged with perjury and sent to jail.
I have no confidence in our legal system, they are untrustworthy in my opinion. Keep up the good work.
Joe | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
Steve: It’s called MOB-THINK and you are right. It does NOT bode well. It IS an indication of a generational gap in understanding the BASICS of OUR history, our constitution, our ethic. Perhaps you will remember the old saw about our democratic (Republic), ‘It’s the worst system there is ... EXCEPT for all thr others.”
Same goes for our judicial system.
Pasquale | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
I find it WRONG that the police decide someone is guilty regardless of the actual evidence, just because they don’t like them or their attitude or their answers. It isn’t up to the police or the DA ( or the media, maybe even especially the media) to decide guilt or innocence. It is up to the jury and once a jury decides who is guilty then and only then should the police stop investigating a crime.
The saddest thing about the Anthony trial is that no one will ever know or be punished (if necessary) for what happened to Callie. No one will ever know because the police decided Casey was guilty and were too
lazy, arrogant, whatever to complete a proper investigation, then they, the DA, and the media act outraged that a jury didn’t do what they wanted but instead did what was right, given the evidence submitted at trial.
The jury is who we should be able to trust, Lord knows we can no longer trust the police or DA’s in this country, because they no longer care about the facts, or right and wrong, just winning and losing a case; they need to realize that this isn’t a game. They are supposed to do their jobs and seek justice not play one up-manship with peoples lives!.
Sarah-jean | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
It’s a shame the comments on this post are almost exclusively about Anthony. I had often used Maye’s case as an example of how messed up the war on drugs is, with the police obviously held to a different standard than us common citizens (for instance the case where the cop accidentally shot a sleeping 9 year old in the head). I AM JUST FINDING OUT that Maye is a free man, and I feel so incredibly happy for him.
If it wasn’t for the inexplicable bloodlust and outright hunger for revenge of supposed Christians such as Nancy Grace, none of us would even know or care who Casey Anthony is. She clearly wasn’t proven guilty of first degree murder, and it seems doubtful she did commit such, given the lackluster motive. They have no reason to be outraged at the verdict; if anything they should be angry at the prosecution for trying to prove more than they could. And now these “Christians” are claiming solace in believing that Anthony will spend eternity being tortured in hell. If these people truly followed the example of Jesus, they’d be wishing for her to to find forgiveness with God and end up in Heaven. Instead, the new inquisition airs during prime time and has great ratings, drawing in enormous amounts of self-righteous judges.
Robert | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Who was it that said something along the lines of “i’d rather set 1000 guilty men free than send one Innocent one to jail”?
I fear it has become the reverse. The state would rather send 1000 innocent men to jail than miss one guilty one.
Ben | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Exactly.
wilson | Jul 12, 2011 | Reply
“Innocent UNLESS proven guilty”
– NOT –
“Innocent until proven guilty”…
“Until” implies guilt, whereas “unless” implies innocence.
joe4liberty | Jul 12, 2011 | Reply
My Opinion ... a mother who waits 31 days to tell someone that her 2-yr old baby is missing or kidnapped is guilty of negligence. She partied with friends, went shopping w/forged checks, had a tatoo “Bella Vita” (good life) and seemed not to worry that she didn’t know where Caylee was. Only a cold-hearted person could act this way. I wonder if the comments above would be the same if Caylee was a dog or cat. I know of cases where people have faced jail time for mistreatment of animals. I personally don’t think I have to prove ‘how’ Caylee was killed to prove that she ‘was’ killed. This innocent child was placed in 2 garbage bags with a blanket and thrown by the side of the road. If Casey wasn’t involved in this heartless act, then why didn’t she frantically search for her precious daughter. ISN’T LIFE IMPORTANT ANYMORE?
Louise | Jul 16, 2011 | Reply
You know it is a shame that people need to rant and rave about things of which they know nothing about, except what some reporter (tv or news) tells them about it. They seem to think they know better than anybody except GOD. Then when it turns out the opposite of what they thought, they get all upset about it. It seems that they want their # of flesh. The jury is the deciding factor in any trial. Live with the verdict and get on with your life.
Anthony, great article. Sorry that it went where you weren’t expecting it to. I thought it was well written. Keep it up and I will be back for more.
Ron | Aug 4, 2011 | Reply
See: Defense Authorization Act – Is it Treason? If you are still trying to figure out just how far your federal government is willing to go, look no further than the passage of the Defense Authorization Act for 2012, paying very close attention to the text discussed in this column.
Our Constitutional Protections SHREDDED!
http://www.rightsidenews.info/2011120615106/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/defense-authorization-actis-it-treason.html
Great article Mr. Gregory.
Patrick | Dec 14, 2011 | Reply
It seems as though everything is backwards these days.
Omaha Plumber | Sep 4, 2012 | Reply