Playing gotcha

We have been hearing a lot about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He has been a regular on the late night talk show joke circuit as well as on all the editorial cartoon pages. I must admit that my favorite is the one above because I am a Lord of the Rings fan. (If you click on it, you can go to the cartoonist’s display.)

But, I was watching the news yesterday morning and saw a clip of a pack of reporters like a pack of ravening wolves chasing down their prey. Then I realized that they were playing a game of Gotchaâ„¢. What do I mean? Well, they were asking him questions to which he dared not reply. For instance, “Governor, did you try to sell the Senate seat?” Or, “Governor, do you deny the allegations against you?” Or, “Governor, are you going to resign?” No matter how he answered the questions, he could end up doing himself legal harm at his trial. But the reporters did not care. They simply wanted to give the impression that they were being intrepid reporters, doing what was necessary to report the news and uncover corruption. Since the Governor does not dare to reply to the questions (either to confirm or deny), it looks as though he is fleeing away in a guilty fashion. And, because we think that he is guilty, we do not blink an eye when we see this type of chase going on. After all, he is simply receiving what he deserves, just a little early.

And, this troubles me. Now, do I think that he is guilty? Yes! But, I am still troubled. The most often given advice by lawyers to their clients is to not make any statements without clearing them with them. The reason is that once you start answering questions, the ravening pack will not be satisfied until you have said everything, and even then they will twist it. (I have a low opinion of modern journalism.) I saw an example of that during the news conference by the Illinois Attorney General. In the question and answer period that followed, after the first five minutes the same questions kept coming up over and over but slightly reworded. Then suggestions only a conspiracy theorist could love started coming up. For instance she was asked whether she was moving this quickly in order to cover up for someone else or whether she was now planning to run for office. Eventually, she had to give up because the “reporters” would not stop, and, since they were running out of legitimate questions, the whole thing was spiraling into a Monty Python film.

This type of behavior troubles me for two reasons. The first is that we all have the Constitutional right to be presumed innocent and to maintain our silence. But, nowadays that has been twisted by both the news media, and even our police departments, into the clear supposition that if you do not speak until they are satisfied, then you must be guilty. And, since they are never satisfied, then everyone they chase, or question in interrogation, must be guilty.

But, the second reason it troubles me is our stance as Christians. On the one hands, we are pessimists about human nature. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God as St. Paul tells us. But, that does not mean that we are guilty of a particular sin. We are also called to be careful in our judgments lest, when the time comes, we also experience the same sort of judgment against us. However, the behavior of the journalists, and many police departments, tends to teach us to declare guilt on everyone. That is, if someone has been charged, then they must be guilty. But, in the past few years, well over 100 people have been cleared by DNA of murder or rape charges that had led to them being on death row. And, those are only the persons with capital crimes in which DNA evidence has been preserved. How many others are in jail innocently because there was no DNA evidence to check in their cases or their crime was not important enough to do extensive follow-up?

So, as Christians, we must be careful not to fall into the mentality that if someone is charged, they must be guilty. Let us, rather, have the mentality that we will not rush to judgment but rather wait for the evidence. Let us not be quick to judge harshly, lest when our time comes we find no defenders for our cause. And, let us extend that to our daily life. Before we take offense at something someone says to us, let us carefully consider whether they thought it was offensive and whether there might be an alternate explanation for their words and actions. Then, only if we are sure that the offense was meant, do we need to initiate the process of reconciliation. (There are times when the person did not mean it offensively but you might need to point out that it sounded rather bad, but that is another subject.) Otherwise, let us maintain charity in all things.