« Nominations | Main | A Proposal for the Democrats »

January 10, 2007

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do, and the guilty lie because they don't have any other choice.

Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, Babylon 5

The fifth amendment to the Constitution is pretty important. It protects all of us from being forced to possibly incriminate ourselves should we find ourselves accused of a crime. You do hear it argued from time to time that, if you don't have anything to hide, why fear testifying, but that's a fool's game. First of all, just because you are innocent, it doesn't mean you don't have anything to hide. We all have things we'd rather keep private (well, reviewing some reality TV shows, maybe some of us don't), and we should not be required to lose that privacy simply because we've been accused of a crime. Second, one of the best things about our legal system is the supposition of innocence: we can't send someone to prison (or worse) unless we can prove they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While that means that some of the guilty get off, it also serves as an important (although eroding) check on the power of the state. Without the supposition of innocence, the government can imprison anyone it wants simply by accusing them. (See Jose Padilla for exhibit A of this shameful behavior.)

Of course, the problem with the fifth amendment is that it goes against human nature. If someone takes the fifth, the average person assumes they are doing so because they are, in fact, guilty. Which is silly when you think about it, since in most cases the crime the person is accused with is heinous enough that risking perjury charges isn't generally a major concern. Nonetheless, taking the fifth is generally regarding as equivalent to admitting one's guilt, which is unfortunate. For the reasons I listed above, people ought to be able to protect their privacy without being assumed to be criminals.

Today's exhibit is Mark McGwire, who fell well short of election to the Hall of Fame yesterday in large part because it is assumed that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his career. And Steve Buckley at the Boston Herald is tickled pink about that, citing McGwire's testimony before Congress as proof of the slugger's guilt. Buckley calls McGwire's response, "I'm not here to talk about the past," a 'cheap lawyer's trick,' as if utilizing the rights our ancestors fought and died for 200+ years ago is somehow sleazy.

I don't know if Mark McGwire used steroids during his career. If I had to bet money on it, I'd bet that he did. But I can't prove it, and while McGwire is not actually on trial, I see no reason why the presumption of innocence should not apply in his case as well, if only to remind people of the principle and why it matters. I don't care if McGwire goes into the HoF or not, but I care a great deal about retaining (and in many cases) reinstating the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights (including those troublesome ninth and tenth amendments).