|
It is a
commonly understood mark of an illiberal regime that it metes
out punishment without trial, or with a show trial to rubber
stamp a predetermined verdict of guilt. We expect this kind of
behaviour only from the tinpot dictators of backward nations.
When a modern power like the United States holds people without
conclusive evidence for years in a prison on foreign soil in the
name of fighting terrorism, we rightly decry it as behaviour
unbecoming a constitutional republic.
Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is a well-established maxim
of justice—except, it seems, when it comes to large
corporations. For some people, calling a multinational "evil" is
redundant. Often, the very same people who are most vocal in
demanding impartial justice for suspected terrorists held in
Guantanamo Bay are the first to pronounce large corporations
guilty based on unproven allegations or mere hearsay. But to
argue that a corporation has the means, and perhaps the short-term
motive, to commit a criminal offense is like arguing that
someone who fits a certain ethnic and religious profile has the
means and potential motive to commit an act of terror. In both
cases, justice requires proof before a determination of guilt.
What is not in question,
though, is that many large corporations are in bed with
governments. It is a matter of public record that many of them
receive subsidies or quasi-monopoly privileges, or hold seats on
the very regulatory committees intended to monitor their
activities. Still, corporations should be judged on a case by
case basis, just like individuals. It would be suicidal under
current conditions for a large company not to employ
lobbyists for self-defence, at least.
Some might maintain that
it is only far-left radicals and far-right militarists who are
too quick to assume guilt. I think the general tenor of
political discourse in this day and age belies such an
assessment. In the great health care debate, for example, those
who want a universal insurance scheme think their opponents
don't care about the uninsured, while those who want less
government involvement think their opponents are power-hungry
thieves. Those of us who believe the other side at least has
good intentions seem to be in the minority. Or maybe we just
can't be heard above the din.
Philosopher David Kelley
of The Atlas Society (for whom I also write) addresses the issue
of moral judgment in
The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, a work that is both
personal statement and philosophical treatise. In the first
chapter, he enumerates all of the steps we must go through, and
all of the evidence we must accumulate, before we can rightly
condemn a person as evil. Even merely condemning an action
requires evidence and context that are often not readily
accessible; condemning the motive behind an action
requires even more proof, and often some serious hypothesizing;
condemning an entire character trait requires that we
judge the motives underlying what a person repeatedly does, and
so takes even more knowledge about a person's background and
circumstances; and finally, condemning a person requires
judging actions and motivations in all sorts of different
situations.
It is not just a question
of basic civility to assume innocence and require proof before
determining guilt. There is a deeper reason, grounded in basic
logical principle, why it does not work the other way around:
quite simply, guilt can be proven, while innocence cannot. Proof
of a single criminal offense is enough to assign at least some
measure of guilt. It is impossible, however, to prove one's
complete innocence conclusively, since this would require that
one prove the absence of any crime at any point in time. An
assertion of guilt is what logicians call an existential
statement, which can be proven by the existence of a single
case. An assertion of innocence is a universal statement,
equivalent to the total absence of any cases of guilt. To
require proof of innocence would place an infinite burden on
defendants, at least in theory. In practice, it would give the
politically powerful a blank check to harass and silence whoever
displeases them.
If it is both illogical
and uncivil, then why are many people so quick to judge? Maybe
it's because people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. It's
easier to fling angry accusations than confront one's own half-buried
doubts. We prefer to profess that we know rather than admit we
might not, even though we might learn something if we did. Maybe
we all had a lot of bad teachers who led us to imagine that
knowing things is more important than knowing how to know things.
In fact, only the person who can be comfortable with uncertainty
is able to approach the world with an open mind. As Barbara
Branden
has written, "We must wear our uncertainties as a badge of
honor, for it is only through uncertainty that we will find the
path to knowledge." If we don't even listen to one another, we
have no reason to have any confidence whatsoever in our
professed beliefs.
Presumed innocence is
both logical and civil. It is also indispensable to the proper
functioning of a free society. It is a bulwark against the abuse
of political power, and any nasty habit of thought that
undercuts the presumption of innocence undermines our freedom in
the long run. Instead of feeling compelled to pronounce judgment
based on suspicion alone, we might consider just admitting what
we don't know.
|
