Presumption of Innocence (column by Dick Cavett)

Any chance you have a link to that article that doesn't require a subscription?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 30 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]414997[/snapback]</div>

Oh Boy now you've done it! You better hope Godiva doesn't see this topic or the mods for that matter. Anyway in most peoples perspective the quoting of an entire article from a free subscription source should probably not be done until a period of time after the article has been available on that service and should not be done at all from a paid subscription service. I think you should have just given us a synopsis of the article as it was short and would have been fairly easy to do.
That being said good find and great article but I do believe that there is a Biblical concept and component to the PofI and that is found in the OT where it says that there must be more than one witness to convict someone of guilt in a (serious?) crime.


Wildkow

 

Well, if I recall my sixth grade social studies, the code of Hammurabi had a lot of if you accused someone of a crime and you couldn't prove it, you were put to death. So I imagine they were really, really careful before accusing anyone of anything and made darn sure they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW in the Code of Hammurabi, there was a lot of "he shall be put to death" as a result of this, that or another thing. I wonder just how law abiding and very polite that society was, at least while Hammurabi was alive.

It looks as if you were both presumed innocent and presumed guilty. The Code implies a right to present evidence. Some point to the code as proof that there were some laws so basic that even a king cannot change them. (A president, maybe.)

The first 3 of 282
"1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

Code of Hammurabi

Love the building code part. I'll bet those Babylonian contractors built their houses to last.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 31 2007, 01:03 AM) [snapback]415399[/snapback]</div>

In other words, you better not accuse anybody who knows how to swim! ... On the other hand, if you can swim, you can get away with anything. I guess I'd never have gone to prison in the time of Hammurabi:

Prosecutor: "This man trespassed on Air Force property and dug a hole in the ground next to a missile silo, causing $60 worth of damage."

Me: "That's true. But I'm not guilty because nukes are WMDs."

I then change into my swimming trunks, jump into the Red River of the North, which flows through Fargo and Grand Forks, ND, swim around for a while, and climb out.

Judge: "I find the defendant not guilty. The prosecutor is to be taken away and executed."

Somehow, I don't think this Hammurabi guy was very bright.

 

I did read the full article, but I'm left wondering just why that amount of time was spent writing, and then (my time) reading it. It is drivel.

In short, Cavett says the "presumption of innocence" was established through English common law. Yeah, I knew that. It is further codified through legislated law (there are even some cites to laws about the state's burden of proof in traffic tickets here on PC), so Cavett's thesis is blown from the start. OK, fine. So what is Cavett's conclusion?

I guess its that we are free to jump to conclusions, accuse others without worrying if they are actually guilty or not, and "try them in the press". That seems to be attractive to him in the current political scandals, which he references, but he evidently can't see past 2008. "What goes around comes around" isn't anywhere in the Constitution either, but it certainly is observable in our partisan politics.

I will remember the presumption of innocence and allow it to moderate my opinions, not because the FBI will come crashing down at midnight on my door, but because its a reasonable and ethical thing to do. In today's society, with the grotesque media attention that makes rape accusations against La Crosse players national news, it is good that we remember our system requires an indictment, filing of charges, and a trial by jury of our peers to convict. And the defendant has the presumption of innocence in the courtroom (even if not in Cavett's mind), and the state has the burden of proof.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 31 2007, 10:43 AM) [snapback]415456[/snapback]</div>

You're right. Not many people could swim.

I also don't know about the current in the Euphrates. If the current sweeps you away to drown, you're guilty. If you make it to shore, you're innocent.

However, you forget about the witnesses. If the prosecutor has witnesses that saw you tresspass and saw you dig the hole. You're guilty. And you do not get to make any explainations or excuses.

And no prison. Seems the penalty is usually death. Sure cuts down on the budget for the penal system.

The code was carved in stone pillars and distributed around. The implication is that there are some laws even the king cannot change and a certain transparancy since everyone had access to the law. Unfortunately about as many citizens could read as could swim. A plus for Hammurabi is that women could institute a divorce. There were other laws designed to protect the rights of women and slaves. Pretty progressive.