Lately there have been two cases that have strongly pointed out why it is so important to have a clear investigation of the facts before drawing conclusions. Both started out appearing to be one type of crime while quickly morphing into another type of crime. The first one is the case of the Covington Catholic High School teenager wearing the MAGA hat who supposedly was smirking at a Native American demonstrator. The second one is the case of Jussie Smollett, the actor who deliberately perpetrated a hate crime hoax.
As we now know, additional video of the confrontation between the teen and the Native American demonstrator showed that the teenagers involved did not begin the confrontation, but rather were the subject of verbal attacks by a black Israelite cult group. The Native American demonstrator came in later and approached the teenagers. The teenagers were later exonerated by a thorough investigation. As it turned out, the website who originally presented the video evidence had deliberately edited the events to only show a limited version of them so that it appeared that it was the teenagers who were misbehaving. It turned out that this was a website that may very well have been part of a group of websites who deliberately attempt to stir up division in this country. I will, however, agree that it was dumb for the teenagers to wear MAGA hats to what was supposed to be a non-political March for Life. Nevertheless, they were innocent.
But, the case of Smollett was particularly horrible in that it used the theme of racial hatred and LGBTQ+ controversies for strictly personal gain. Unlike case number one, in which a website was found to be deliberately stirring up hatred to cause division, this was a petty case of Smollett seeking purely financial gain. It is worse because in the first case there was evidence of issues, for instance the black Israelite cult stirring up trouble. In this case it was a deliberate planned deception. The chief of police in Chicago was utterly incensed when he finally gave his public report today, and understandably so. As an African-American he commented on how Smollett’s actions had cheapened the work of civil rights, not only in Chicago but also in the country. His deception will give ground to those who try to pretend that all racial hatred is merely deception by the “other side.”
Nevertheless, there is a clear warning here. Conclusions should not be drawn before an investigation has taken place. The police chief made an interesting remark during today’s conference. He was asked why the police had not confirmed earlier that they had questions. His comment was right on point. He said that a complainant must be treated as a victim until shown otherwise. This is actually a good principle. He did not say that a complainant must be believed immediately. He said that a complainant must be treated as a victim until shown otherwise. This actually strikes a reasonable balance in how to deal with criminal complaints by individuals.
Today, we have those who say that if a woman complains of rape, she must be believed. The answer is “NO.” A woman who complains is treated as a victim, and the allegations are investigated. She must not be believed merely on her word alone, as there have been too many cases similar to the cases above in the area of rape. In 2014, a study showed that in 74% of divorce proceedings in which spousal abuse was claimed, there was corroborating evidence. But, that means that in 26% there was not, and in a number of them false accusations were demonstrated. As sad as it may sound, without some corroborating evidence, we should not automatically assume the guilt of the other party. We should treat the complainant as a victim, but we must investigate and go with the evidence.
The two cases cited at the beginning revolve around the area of racism and ethnicity. In both cases, the original complaints were found to be false. In one case, a website deliberately edited some video to give a false witness, while in the other case, the victim lied lied lied. Had the approach been taken that a complainant must be believed, some innocent people might have been convicted. We cannot afford that as a society. Every complaint must be properly investigated.
Let me point out that the major change that has taken place over the decades is on how the complainant is treated. There was a time when a woman claiming rape was questioned as to her personal morals, her prior sexual behavior, etc., in ways that tended to imply that “she had been asking for it.” Those times are generally gone. Women today are treated as victims first. The same is true of those complaining of racism. In the days of the Old South, those complaining of racism quickly found the KKK at their doorstep. Today, they are treated as victims first.
But, treating someone as a victim first does not allow us to treat the accused as a perpetrator first, unless there is clear and immediate evidence of a crime. The accused has to have his or her chance to defend himself or herself. He or she must have the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. The Covington High School boys were found innocent when the evidence to the contrary was produced. Had the Native American demonstrator been believed without question, innocent boys might have been expelled or suspended from high school, with a permanent mark on their record. That is not justice, but injustice.
Many do not like that system. In the Old South, people were lynched based on simple accusations. We cannot function that way today. Is there a chance that some guilty will go free? Yes, but the principles of this country were well expressed by Judge Blackstone, in the late 18th century, who commented, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
The full quote is, “all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. And Sir Matthew Hale in particular lays down two rules most prudent and necessary to be observed: 1. Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown, merely because he will give no account how he came by them, unless an actual felony be proved of such goods; and, 2. Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter till at least the body be found dead; on account of two instances he mentions where persons were executed for the murder of others who were then alive but missing.”
Commentaries on the Laws of England
We must hue to the sound principles of jurisprudence, and not merely go on the supposed idea that victims never lie. Please note, the statistics do show that the overwhelming majority of victims do not lie. See the statistic I quoted above. But, because some victims do lie, the system cannot be built such that there is no way to test the complaint. That is asking for injustice of a different type rather than justice.
Excellent points. I would, however, add that not everyone was happy with that Covington investigation, particularly the Greater Cincinnati Native American Coalition and other Native American groups. They felt that the investigators relied too much on young Nick’s written account and did not interview Mr. Phillips or Nick Sandmann. They believed that the response of Sandmann and his peers was disrespectful and even though they dispute the boys were chanting, the Coalition felt their behavior was racist and this opportunity to teach was lost in the rush to paint the boys as innocent.
They also failed to acknowledge that the political gear was or could be in any way provocative.
I have reviewed many articles about this, including those from conservative sources where instead of giving all sides the benefit of the doubt, they said Mr. Phillips lied, and not one of them mention a supposed intentional fake video. Every one mentioned that it was a small sample but not that it was fake. I would be interested in your source.
Personally, I have watched multiple different angles and even Mr. Phillips said he went between them because of the tension. What I saw as a parent would make me discipline a son of mine that smirked that way and would not move. Yes, I know what the investigation decided but I also know what I saw and they were being jerks. I would’ve used the opportunity to teach my son about respect and racism…but I do agree the divisions in this country made the reactions very partisan.
The Jussie Smollet investigation was a perfect example of how a law enforcement institution should behave. It truly is sad he felt the need to do this when there really is a huge increase in hate crimes at this time.
All this should warn us to not overreact at the drop of a hat. Let us be more circumspect and slower to respond with our outrage.