Innocent until proven guilty

The editors make a very weak argument in their editorial, “Precautions for U of S student body must come first” (SP, May 18). I will point out only three of several serious issues.

First, let me state unequivocally that the crime was odious and inexcusable and in no way am I dismissing the reprehensible actions of the offender or minimizing the impact on the victim. However, the fact that the editorial team of the Starphoenix is not thinking straight is cause for great concern.

Their claim, expressed in the title, is not supported. Nowhere do they provide any explanation for how the student body would have been safer if Meyer had not been allowed to play volleyball.

Hindsight fallacies. They wrote: “Now, Meyer has admitted the offence and has been found guilty, confirming that he should have been precluded from being part of the Huskies squad.” How do they propose that we are to know the outcome of court cases before they are concluded?

They also wrote, “Apparently, the need to take a strong stand against such crimes is still not clearly understood by all.” At the time Meyer was permitted to play on a U of S team no crime had been proven against which a strong stand should have been taken.

There have been cases, some involving high profile people and even a close friend of mine and a relative, of malicious and false accusations. Apparently the importance of being considered innocent till proven guilty is not clearly understood by all. Marcel D’eon, Saskatoon