The American court system has rapidly decayed in recent decades. Almost as fast and lowdown as the media.
Not that it was any great shakes in many parts of the nation back in the 1900s.
Consider this story about a man from Rapid CIty, which appeared in Newsbreak, a smartphone app, and was taken from LawyersTalk.com. I’ll have to share more of the story than usual, to explain my point about both the media and the court system.
The headline: A 35-year-old man from Rapid City gets indicted for Sexual Abuse.
Opening paragraph: Brandon Lindemann, age 35 from Rapid City, South Dakota was indicted for two counts of sexual abuse and was found not guilty before U.S Magistrate Judge.
That’s right: the REAL story wasn’t that he was indicted, but that he was found NOT GUILTY.
Now, what this article reveals about the (federal) court system in 2020 – and the way the Congress demonstrates the accuracy of Carlisle’s Law
“Carlisle’s Rule. To find the I.Q. of any committee of commission, first determine the I.Q. of the most stupid member and then divide that result by the number of members.”Paul Dickson’s The New Official Rules
Later in the story we read: The charge made was based on accusations; therefore, the offender is guilty until proven.
Really? Guilty until proven. (I presume, until proven innocent.)
Oh, Nathan, you must be wrong.
Really? Consider what even this infamous deep-stater said:
The American legal system has already adopted this concept even in criminal cases but according to Bob Barr, an attorney and politician, while both appreciating and criticizing his country’s judiciary says: “The legal principle placing the burden of proof on accusers rather than the accused can be traced back to Second and Third Century Roman jurist, Julius Paulus Prudentissimus. Yet, this ancient concept, which forms the legal and moral cornerstone of the American judicial system, is quickly being undermined in the name of national security”. There is clear implication of miscarriage of justice even in the USA.Bob Barr (as quoted in the Pakistan Daily Times
This has been a basic, essential part of Western (Anglo-American) law for nearly 300 years, and can be traced back to the Law of Moses (the Torah) in the Old Testament: more than 3,000 years. The Blackstone ratio is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. as stated by the great English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. Benjamin Franklin went one factor of ten better, stating it as: “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”
Often defined as “presumption of innocence,” it is core to the concept of justice, tied intimately to “proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Indeed, the Legal Dictionary writes in part, “…the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.”
But in 2021, apparently many lawyers, judges, and “lawmakers” no longer believe or practice this, as the article illustrates.
And neither to those who viciously attack others by Tweet, Facebook, or on the media screens and pages: EVERYONE is guilty of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING unless they can prove they are not – and not just to a judge or a jury, but to every single human which can be queried about it.
This is especially true when it comes to sexual abuse, child abuse (except for killing children in the womb, of course), going easy on Russia (but not publicly on China), racism, sexism, and homophobia. The accused must prove themselves “not guilty” more and more.
And that way lies more tyranny, and certainly NOT freedom and liberty.