Today, it’s a rush to judg­ment; with Bill Clin­ton, it was not

Star Tribune - - EDITORIALS READERS WRITE - BRUCE GRANGER, West Con­cord, Minn.

I am not writ­ing here to de­clare guilt or in­no­cence. Of that I only have an opin­ion, and we all know about opin­ions. In cases of re­cent sex­u­alas­sault al­le­ga­tions, the ac­cused is au­to­mat­i­cally pre­sumed to be guilty in the eyes of the me­dia and the pub­lic in gen­eral. I see noth­ing of pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence in the news. Let’s take Judge Roy Moore, for ex­am­ple. If he mur­dered some­one or robbed a bank, at least he would be tried in a court of law. In this case, the me­dia is the judge, the pub­lic, the jury with a guilty ver­dict be­fore the trial be­gins. In re­gard to the re­cent ac­cu­sa­tions of sex­ual as­sault made against nu­mer­ous politi­cians and Hol­ly­woods, what­ever hap­pened to pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence? If those ac­cused can­not pro­vide ab­so­lute de­fin­i­tive proof, they are un­ques­tion­ably pre­sumed guilty. Let’s back up 20 years and look at an un­named high-rank­ing politi­cian from Arkansas. In this case it was in­cum­bent on the ac­cuser to pro­vide proof of truth. Now it’s a com­plete 180 from those times. The ac­cused has to re­spond to the ac­cu­sa­tion even when no proof is of­fered, only words. If the ac­cused can­not pro­vide de­fin­i­tive proof, they are pre­sumed guilty. We need to meet some­place be­tween 20 years ago and now.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.