The British prime minister wants to end the presumption of innocence in British courts. This is not a shocking development, given that Blair has spent much of his tenure trying to weaken his country’s judiciary and legal system.
And if you think no American president would ever advocate such a change, consider that the presumption of innocence has already been largely abandoned in the name of “prosecutorial discretion” and the “public interest.” In many fields of law, particularly business regulation, a person or firm charged with violating the law is essentially presumed guilty.
One way the state has pulled this off is by labelling criminal cases as “civil,” thereby lowering the standard of proof. Simultaneously, the courts have adopted analytical methods that heavily presume the correctness of prosecutorial actions. Add to that the near total legal immunity all prosecutors (and police) enjoy from the consequences of their misconduct, and suddenly Tony Blair’s actions becomes a logical proposition.
{ 7 comments }
Oliva,
The British newspaper you link to seems rather sensationalist to me, even if it is the “UK’s biggest selling newspaper.”
Yes, I thought the same thing when I read the article, but my point is still valid. If Blair said what is attributed to him, it would be making explicit the trends in law enforcement that have been observed in Britain and the United States.
Yes, it’s true that the Sun is Murdoch’s most yellow organ, but here’s the respectable end of the empire, the erstwhile Thunderer ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1821908,00.html ):
“Mr Blair was not in a compromising mood. He told his monthly press conference: “If you are a police officer patrolling the streets, and someone throws a brick through a window, or abuses an old lady on the way to the shops . . . If you have to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it.
“By the time you have filled out all the forms, done the statements, got them to court, three hearings, they have defence lawyers, all the rest of it, forget it. You may say, ‘yes, we should do that if we are going to charge someone with an offence’. But if that’s what you do, you don’t get the job done.
“The reason I introduced fixed penalties was I said ‘we have had enough of that’. You give them a fixed-penalty notice then they have to come to court to challenge it. That’s summary justice. It’s tough and it’s hard but in my judgment it’s the only way to deal with it.” ”
Once should never underestimate the narcissistic despotism of First Citizen RobespiBlaire!
Hooray! the spirit of Cromwell re-asserts itself in Britain at a crucial time; now maybe our British cousins can conveniently provide America with a robust example of what I have not so secretly but til recently inarticulately wanted for America since boyhood when Chiang, Franco, Marcos, Salazar, the shah of Iran, the junto of south Korean army general officers that ousted Rhee, himself no weakling, for unexcusable nicety in the face of communist inspired public disruption, & other authoritarians willing to do America’s cold war dirty work & mean time be expedient bastards I longed to emulate, were alive & thriving. All I want first is for the rockefeller pseudo republicans, global cartelist-mercantilist corporate facilitators of the NAFTA & now CAFTA, neo-conservatives–of COURSE–snobs, elitists, christians, Objectivists, non-nativists, resolute anti-isolationists & other pests who would curb its score settling populism & imperious self righteousness swept aside VERY roughly. The problem with libertarians & individualist arch conservatives is 1, their placing of freedom at the top of the list of politico-ideologic values when power is plainly ever so much more appealing as well as imperative & 2, their infuriating scruple & inhibition given the greatest opportunity to plan NOW to TAKE power & show our foes & detractors just how right they & their smarmy predecessors were about many of us in all the lurid exposes of domestic re-action they began writing in the post-second world war era. So far from deploring the figures now imposing authoritarianism on America on grounds of alleged airy fairy universal objectionability I frankly am JEALOUS, ENVIOUS & CONVINCED I can do BETTER–just call me 1 of Hayek’s worst aspiring to reach the top!
Mr. Smith, I’m impressed. Could you take even one breath while writing that?
As Gandalf said, “I would use the power of the ring out of a desire to do good.”
To answer the plainly amuzed Mister Howland I do not crave power generally & seek specifically the public murder of the legal presumption of innocence against the accused from a desire to do good but to maximize the number of accused convicted & punished regardless of any ensuing affront to justice for very personal reasons that are no one’s business in a forum such as this; I will admit though to being much enamored of the dis-interested disposition to punish & icily disdainful of the legal doctrine of mens rea which demands the prosecutor prove intent to commit a real malum in se. I will go so far further as to state I think actual innocence, far from mere ignorance, is no excuse: any one finding himself in dutch with the authorities has only himself to blame for doing what ever he did to draw their invidious attention imprimis–he should have avoided seeming to be up to some thing! & even if grudgingly released he should at least have to pay a fine for causing waste of public resources, specially during a crisis. Also by no means may people in such situations ever be told what they did to provoke the authorities! Such information must always stay secret so people who ARE up to some thing will not know to avoid giving those cues. In addition I favor a populist authoritarian regime scrupulously solicitous of its repute & prerogatives: frank criticism of its policies, specially the meaner & rougher ones, or even just suspicion that such criticism may be nigh, would find those targeted charged with indangering public safety by denigrating the integrity & fidelity of officials & personnel as well as wisdom & necessity of the policies themselves, & ideologic basis of the very regime–& truth would explicitly be no defence. Boldly raising THAT issue would be an offence itself. But I am far from done: any one constraining cops to inflict police brutality on himself would be charged with presumptive incitement of riot as there is in any crowd at least some pestiferous do-gooders resolved to make an issue of such a thing & even interfere. Americans must suffer for neglecting & dissipating every thing I once held dear & I aim to see them suffer awfully at the hands of men intitled to impose the penalty NOT the despicable so & sos I already cited.
Blair seems sincere. What he’s forgetting – if he’s sincere – is that such powers will be abused. But he’s not naive, I think he knows that. Evil politician!
Comments on this entry are closed.