In much of the world, they say that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but while this may be an ideal that the courts are supposed to uphold, at least in theory, it's definitely not the case for the public. I would like to start a discussion about the assumptions that we make of people accused of crimes, not from the perspective of a juror but as someone who is watching the news. I think we all have biases and I invite all of you to examine them and share them here honestly. Further, let us discuss what our biases say about us as a society and how our individual politics, culture, and experience influence these biases.
To get the ball rolling, I'll bring up some scenarios and talk about my perception and my ideas of what makes others react the way they do.
- People accused of possessing child pornography. With few exceptions, I tend to presume guilt. I do not generally entertain the notion that someone might be framed for this or that they stumbled into it accidentally because I don't think an innocent person would do anything but try to delete all immediately or get rid of the device it's on altogether. That said, I think we as a society should be cognizant of our strong emotional reactions to this kind of accusation regarding sexual exploitation of children because when society enters a moral panic, innocent people do get swept up in it. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
- Police killings of innocent people. I tend to presume guilt as I think there is ample evidence that police brutality consists of much more than "a few bad apples", to be honest I'm at the point where I feel generous in saying there are a few good apples. Now I of course recognize that this is an unpopular position and that the majority of people tend to presume innocence. I do not make the assumption that a police officer has committed a premeditated murder, rather that their behavior is a byproduct of their training and the culture of law enforcement, that they are instilled with the attitude that they are like an occupying army in a hostile land and that every civilian is a potential insurgent. It's not that cops go out looking to kill, but that at the slightest hint of danger they are willing to use extreme prophylactic measures. I ask myself, if this were the same scenario but it was a civilian instead of a cop, what would I think of this? People's initial feelings about police killings are definitely tied to their politics and to race.
- Political corruption. How I feel about this is very dependent on the country and the affiliation of the accused and accusers. If I hear of a member of the opposition being accused of corruption in Brazil or the Philippines, I default to a very strong presumption of innocence because I know that reactionary authoritarians use the law as a weapon. If it's happening in China, my feelings could go either way. I definitely believe the government frames dissidents but I also believe that their business world is full of parasitic people looking to increase their fortunes, so tax evasion and corruption charges can be quite plausible, I have similar feelings regarding situations in Russia where it's Putin vs. an oligarch, I don't really trust either of them. In America, I admit to having kneejerk reactions depending on the state, if I hear about corruption in Illinois there is a part of me that thinks "yeah, they're all dirty, every single one" but I recognize I have been influenced by media coverage and cultural perceptions.
- Famous murder cases. I had a very strong presumption of guilt with Casey Anthony but I 100% believed Amanda Knox was innocent, I don't want to get too far into it or this post will be way too long, but I'd be interested to hear your opinions on these cases and others.
- Drugs. I think people having drugs planted on them is quite common so I might presume innocence, although I admit that my feelings against prohibition basically mean that I either think they're innocent or I know they're not but I hope they get away with it anyway, though this doesn't apply to large quantities and kingpins.
- Rape. I tend to presume guilt because I think a person has very little to gain and a lot to lose by making a false accusation, especially in a case with a great deal of public attention. The entire process of making an accusation means dealing with all manner of degradation from having a rape kit done to your sex life scrutinized in the media to the accused's attorney trying to discredit you in court. Like police shootings, one's presumption is tied to politics. In feminist spaces there is often a unanimous presumption of guilt, in right-wing spaces the discussion will immediately go toward talk of there being an epidemic of false accusations and #MeToo being out of control, unless the accused figure is extremely disliked by them such as Bill Clinton, in which case there will be a unanimous presumption of guilt while liberals will mostly presume innocence.
So, confess your biases and share your thoughts on what makes people think the way they do. Feel free to add any other type of crime where there are often strong presumptions of guilt or innocence or your feelings on famous cases.