Courts and Criminals | Page 5

is all the other way, greater or less
depending upon the particular attitude of mind and experience of the
individual.
This natural presumption of guilt from the mere fact of the charge is
rendered all the more likely by reason of the uncharitable readiness
with which we believe evil of our fellows. How unctuously we repeat

some hearsay bit of scandal. "I suppose you have heard the report that
Deacon Smith has stolen the church funds?" we say to our friends with
a sententious sigh--the outward sign of an invisible satisfaction. Deacon
Smith after the money-bag? Ha! ha! Of course, he's guilty! These
deacons are always guilty! And in a few minutes Deacon Smith is
ruined forever, although the fact of the matter may well have been that
he was but counting the money in the collection-plate. This willingness
to believe the worst of others is a matter of common knowledge and of
historical and literary record. "The evil that men do lives after them--"
It might well have been put, "The evil men are said to have done lives
forever." However unfair, this is a psychologic condition which plays
an important part in rendering the presumption of innocence a gross
absurdity.
But let us press the history of Jones and Robinson a step further. The
next event in the latter's criminal history is his appearance in court
before a magistrate. Jones produces his evidence and calls his witnesses.
Robinson, through his learned counsel, cross-examines them and then
summons his own witnesses to prove his innocence. The proceeding
may take several days or perhaps weeks. Briefs are submitted. The
magistrate considers the testimony and finally decides that he believes
Robinson guilty and must hold him for the action of the grand jury.
You might now, it would perhaps seem, have some reason for
suspecting that Robinson was not all that he should be. But no! He is
still presumed in the eyes of the law, and theoretically in the eyes of his
fellows, to be as innocent as a babe unborn. And now the grand jury
take up and sift the evidence that has already been gone over by the
police judge. They, too, call witnesses and take additional testimony.
They likewise are convinced of Robinson's guilt and straightway hand
down an indictment accusing him of the crime. A bench warrant issues.
The defendant is run to earth and ignominiously haled to court. But he
is still presumed to be innocent! Does not the law say so? And is not
this a "government of laws"? Finally, the district attorney, who is not
looking for any more work than is absolutely necessary, investigates
the case, decides that it must be tried and begins to prepare it for trial.
As the facts develop themselves Robinson's guilt becomes more and
more clear. The unfortunate defendant is given any opportunity he may

desire to explain away the charge, but to no purpose.
The district attorney knows Robinson is guilty, and so does everybody
else, including Robinson. At last this presumably innocent man is
brought to the bar for trial. The jury scan his hang-dog countenance
upon which guilt is plainly written. They contrast his appearance with
that of the honest Jones. They know he has been accused, held by a
magistrate, indicted by a grand jury, and that his case, after careful
scrutiny, has been pressed for trial by the public prosecutor. Do they
really presume him innocent? Of course not. They presume him guilty.
"So soon as I see him come through dot leetle door in the back of the
room, then I know he's guilty!" as the foreman said in the old story.
What good does the presumption of innocence, so called, do for the
miserable Robinson? None whatever--save perhaps to console him in
the long days pending his trial. But such a legal hypocrisy could never
have deceived anybody. How much better it would be to cast aside all
such cant and frankly admit that the attitude of the continental law
toward the man under arrest is founded upon common sense and the
experience of mankind. If he is the wrong man it should not be difficult
for him to demonstrate the fact. At any rate circumstances are against
him, and he should be anxious to explain them away if he can.
The fact of the matter is, that in dealing with practical conditions,
police methods differ very little in different countries. The authorities
may perhaps keep considerably more detailed "tabs" on people in
Europe than in the United States, but if they are once caught in a
compromising position they experience about the same treatment
wherever they happen to be. In France (and how the apostles of liberty
condemn the iniquity of the administration of criminal justice in that
country!) the suspect