Over the past few months, between living in Thailand and hearing about dreadful bills like SOPA winding their labyrinthine way through Congress, I have become increasingly concerned that one of the most ominous trends in our time is the decreasing tendency among people (myself included, I must confess) to presume innocence in other people. It is very hard, if not impossible to prove yourself to be innocent, simply because proving a negative means exhausting all possibilities of the positive, and that is nearly (if not) impossible to do. And yet that is the task of proving innocence. If we presume people are guilty, we make it impossible for them to defend themselves, and yet this seems to be happening more and more often. It deeply troubles me.
Let us take the new SOPA law as an example. Companies wish to control access to the internet–just as nations do. Everyone wants to be able to monopolize the story they tell and that others hear. Companies, naturally, wish to protect their profits, make sure copyrights are indefinite so that nothing they make rents from ever reaches the public domain ever again, and then sue grandmas and libraries for copyright infringement and make the targets of their accusations prove their innocence. This is ridiculous. How can I prove that I did not download a song illegally? If there is no .mp3 file found on my computer, it could be said that I just deleted it. Never mind the truth.
How can you prove you’re not insulting someone? Everything that can be said can be taken as an insult by someone who is so inclined. And if that person is judge, jury, and executioner, there is no possibility of a just verdict, since the one who takes offense is the one who decides whether something is offensive or not and also what punishment the offense deserves. We presume innocence, and give others the benefit of the doubt in large part because we should recognize that all of us are somewhat prickly and too quick to take offense, and therefore we need to deliberately counteract that natural tendency in order to preserve harmonious relationships with other people.
And the same is true with other questions as well. How can you prove that you’re not a liar or that you’re not a thief, or even that you’re not a rapist? It’s not an easy thing to do these days. Even if you can get a verdict of not guilty in a court of law, you can’t prove your innocence in the court of public opinion. To be suspected of anything these days is an automatic presumption of guilt, and you can’t restore that sense of innocence again, no matter what you do. Like the spot on Lady MacBeth’s hand, it won’t go away no matter how hard you try to wash it away. This is not an acceptable state of affairs, and yet I am at a loss on how to improve it.
Perhaps we must each start with ourselves. I certainly have made (more than) my fair share of harsh and railing accusations in my life. It is not enough merely to follow the tide of a society and a civilization that is circling the drain of the bathtub and sinking into a moral abyss. Even fighting against the current we are pulled into places where we do not want to be, but if we merely float along with it we will be beyond hope of recovery.
Perhaps a large part of the problem with our loss of the presumption of innocence and our presumption of guilt with other people is because we have forgotten that the accounts and stories we read and see are loaded with, well, presumptions. It is easy to recognize when other people are making loaded assumptions and ad hominem attacks, using false dilemmas to foreclose legitimate options and stacking the deck against us, but it is hard to prevent ourselves from engaging in the same dishonorable reasoning ourselves, or to feel nonpartisan enough to cheer on others who behave so dishonestly in those causes which we believe in passionately.
As a result, we get into the habit of presuming guilt simply because so much of what goes on around us is corrupt. We see the evil around us, and within us, and we assume that everyone is as corrupt and wicked as we are, and as the world around us is. As a result, whether someone is guilty not at all, in part, or in whole, we do not distinguish degrees of guilt, have a low threshold for judging guilt, and do not revisit or correct our misjudgments in light of later information. As a result, we become blind to correction and reproof ourselves, thinking ourselves infallible judges even as we paint the world in different shades of black.
There is no good way this can end. Unless we work on ourselves to allow our judgments to be corrected and tempered by the evidence, we cannot properly judge the actions of others or provide a good example for how other people are to judge us by the same standard which we judge by. If we grab our pitchfork and torches and join along the various idiotic lynch mobs and witch hunts that are systemic all around our world at the present moment, or if we sympathize with their thuggery, rest assured that like all revolutions this one will eat its own children, and we will all be at risk of being tried and executed in such an extralegal fashion. If we desire to be free from such a pitiful end, we must arrest this process now, both in ourselves and in our societies, to the extent we have influence.
If we presume that all people of a given gender, or ethnicity, or religion, or socioeconomic status are guilty of some kind of crimes against humanity, there is nowhere for us to turn for any kind of rational reflection or generosity when that same standard if visited upon us. We must be very wary–our hostile and violent mood can easily be returned on our own heads if we are not careful. For righteous indignation works many ways–and justice is without mercy to those who show no mercy to others. Let us not be counted among that mob.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
RE: “I am at a loss on how to improve it.”
It is virtually impossible to improve on something that we do not understand. Perhaps the first problem with humanity is this in that we do not understand what type, or what sort of beings we are. Second, do we know what sort we are but we are afraid to admit it? Everywhere we look we are given the message that we are really instinctual animals like the animals in the wild. Is this really true or are we something else? Viewing humanity as animals trying to grow into something else like a “spiritual” entity sounds so rediculous that since the beginning of time this idea has caused so much strife and grief because of the difficulty in accomplishing this erroneous feat. Humanity is in fact something else as we are not nor have we ever been animals in the wild. The fact that humanity as a whole is “striving” to become something shows that we know what sort we are and we want to change this for some reason. First we must ask what is it that humanity as a whole is “striving” to become? Obviously it is not to become as a whole, a race of “spiritual” beings because the divisions prove this to us. When humanity gets to recognize itself in its true form, then we will be able to see clearly what we are as a race of ? beings, thus we will see where and what it is that we must do about it, or, should we in fact trying to become something different. On the one hand if we were as it is believed by many, created by God in a certain way, why then do we want to “change” from this. If humans eveoloved into what we are currently by some “natural selection” process, then we have changed, and we are changing, also we will change but only when the right time calls for it. So where does this leave us at present? Maybe the onus should be placed on the word “present” and to add reference and meaning to the present we should add “appreciation”, thus we have an appreciation for the moment or the “present”.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, but it sounds pretty ridiculous. We are more than mere animals, and our capacity for reason gives us personal responsibility and makes us moral beings capable of rising above mere instinct. This means that we have to wrestle with moral dilemmas. Free will means responsibility and it means having a moral and intellectual existence superior to mere animals. This has plenty of consequences, whether we want to face them or not. We cannot glorify in our intelligence and in our intuition and our understanding and then seek to avoid responsibility by saying that we are mere animals as the Darwinians falsely claim.
LikeLike
I can understand and apprecaite you saying that my comment is ridiculous but then again look around and find something that makes sense (scripture excluded). This blog article brings up issues that are ridiculous. And suppose you tell us what sort we are then and how are we suppose to respond to knowing what sort we are when a person can describe to us what it is that we are ?
LikeLike
Perhaps if you spoke a little more specifically I could give you more details. This post was a rumination on the ugly hostility of our times, presuming others to be guilty without there being a way to prove innocence. Such an ugly mood is present all over the world in a variety of ways–and I was pointing out that there are laws in Thailand (for example) as well as bills working their way through the American Congress that presume guilt on the part of those who speak freely and openly. I find this ridiculous, but I’m not being ridiculous, just extremely concerned. I am also, very seriously, pointing out (paraphrasing scripture and referencing historical examples like the French Revolution) that this has very ominous consequences for us if we continue along this path. You don’t have to like it, but it is what it is.
LikeLike
RE: “presume guilt on the part of those who speak freely and openly”
Hmmm?
“Clearly, such research would have massive implications, as it would make more of the “private” thoughts of humankind open to scrutiny by the outside world, thus making our emotional lives far more public than we may wish them to be.”
What did the person who wrote this mean exactly because as I have mentioned before my comprehension level is very low I believe. Please could you clear this up for me and I might be aqble to better add commentary to this article of “Presumed Innocent”
LikeLike
Two comments: First, when you are brought up on trial for Lese Majeste in Thailand (that is, insulting the dignity of the king or the monarchy in general), and if SOPA passes and you are brought up on trial for copyright infringement, guilt is presumed. You then have to prove innocence to those who feel wronged–either insulted or robbed. This makes proving innocence impossible and reverses the proper order of how guilt is to be determined. A moral legal order demands that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because it recognizes our inherent bias towards pronouncing others guilty and serves to counteract that natural bias. Second, research that makes private thoughts public (this would include technology that would try to “read” emotions) is dangerous, because it means that what we feel becomes generally known, and ridiculed and insulted and used against us, which most people (myself included) find entirely unacceptable, especially on a day-to-day level.
LikeLike
What is there to fear where there is sincere and honest love, let them read all they want into a person’s emotions be it by EKG machines or an oracle does not matter. Professing Christians should not have any problems with this as it is that they go by the :word of God” thus know to forgive freely, as this would not show anything on a “scan” if it were, other than pure and honest loving and kind intent for all of humanity regardless. Would it not?
LikeLike
One cannot assume that motives are love. Even God allowed Adam and Eve privacy in the Garden of Eden to choose right and wrong for themselves. It is an ungodly act of attempting to usurp the privileges of God for us to seek to be all knowing about the lives of others. Such an act destroys trust and the possibility for genuinely loving relationships, and it also destroys the freedom of others by bringing every thought of their own under our unfriendly scrutiny. Let us not be so naive to think that such an investigation would be limited to those who were friendly to us, though of course those who wished such things would pretend to do it for our best interests even as they sought to enslave us. For such is the way it always is.
LikeLike
I hope that you understand that these discussions are not in my from my side, directed at you or myself, at least that is my intention. I heard it said somewhere, that to “speak in general is to be an idiot”, well then I am an idiot in that regard but this quote caused me to think about something else and it was, what would it mean that a person always took things or was always listening in the first person? Would this person then be more than an idiot?
I am perfectly aware of how history has served us in regard to “them who wish to enslave us”, this is not ever going to detere me from my intent on assisting where I can those whim have been negatively impacted by “them who wish to enslave us”. They do not matter in the least to me and I fear them in no way, I know who leads me and I know where I am going and for this I will keep on with what I have begun.
In regards to people who are afraid of having their inner most thoughts revealed, perhaps they should try to understand what real and true forgiveness is. I love regardless and it is without prejudice, if my brain scan shows anything different then I will have to as you always say, own up to my responsibility. If they decieve me then it is what it is and we will just have to wait and see when and if that time comes, however at the “present” I will remain appreciative.
LikeLike
Are you talking about speaking as a fool, as the Apostle said? Instead, Paul seemed to be saying that somewhat sarcastically, as he was dealing with false apostles who bragged about themselves and sought to profit off of the credulity (naivite) of the Corinthians, while Paul “foolishly” said he was too weak to take advantage of or cheat the brethren. It is not always easy to speak as a fool in a like manner to him, though.
I would not say that the desire of people to enslave or oppress others ought to deter one from their work, except they ought to be aware that any kind of knowledge or advancement can be put to good use as well as bad. Technology and advances are not good (or evil) in themselves from a moral perspective. It is the means in which people use them and the ends to which they are put that are good or evil, and that is something we must be sensitive to, lest we find ourselves tools used by others for evil ends while being unaware.
LikeLike
lol, no, I do not believe that to speak in general means to be foolish but when a person speaks and uses the word, “you” to mean any person and the one he is speaking to thinks the other person is talking about him, this causes problems in communication. I am probably wrong as I usually am and always in need of correction but I have trouble with this and I have to keep reminding people that I mean any person and not the one I am speaking directly to. That said, I apologise for any confusion and my replies in the future may take a little longer as I should edit my speech to avoid this. Sorry Nathan.
LikeLike