All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2013 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
10:02
The Presumption of Guilt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There is a disturbing trend in modern society that is proceeding forward unchecked at a rapid pace because people do not seem to have the philosophical tools and arguments to prevent it.
Anglosphere societies claim to be the progenitors of modern democracy and freedom, and historically England has had a much better track record than most nations.
This is primarily based on a core value of English common law, presumption of innocence.
This is possibly the most important principle in the application of justice, and why we consider English law to be superior to all other legal systems that do not operate under it.
Wikipedia's definition is, quote, The presumption of innocence is the principle that one may be considered innocent till proven guilty.
The application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations.
The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of the fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
Now, what does this mean?
First and foremost, the purpose of the presumption of innocence is to protect innocent people.
By any rational and scientific means possible, one must ensure that innocent people are not wrongfully punished as this is unjust.
This is the capital principle under which a free society can operate.
If innocent people are routinely punished for crimes they did not commit, you have an inherently unjust system.
If you have an inherently unjust system, the question of whether it can dispense justice is fundamentally compromised because we already know injustices are a core part of that system.
A just system is hard to maintain.
Justice is hard work.
To quote Orson Welles, a policeman's job is only easy in a police state.
An injustice is very easy to maintain.
If the initial accusation garners a presumption of guilt, then the job of the defendant, whether accused justly or not, is impossible.
It leads us to a primary concept of critical thinking, that it is impossible to prove a negative.
Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot is a prime example of how one can expect the burden of proof to come from the defendant, especially when falsely accused.
It was originally conceived as an argument against religion, but it is equally applicable in any circumstance where an assertion is in question.
The premise is simple.
If I say to you that there is a teapot altering the sun between the Earth and Mars, the burden of proof for this assertion lies upon me, the person making the assertion, instead of upon you, the person who is receiving the assertion.
You have no way of proving that there is not a teapot altituding around the sun.
Ergo, you cannot disprove me.
Therefore, there must be a teapot in orbit around the sun because I am claiming it to be true.
Obviously, you know that there is not a teapot in orbit around the sun.
But how can you show me to be wrong?
You cannot, and if a statement is not wrong, then it must be right, because the statement is not wrong.
The burden of proof lies entirely on the person making an assertion in any situation, because an assertion is either correct or incorrect.
It is a statement in which one condition is true, automatically disqualifying it from validating any mutually contradictory conditions.
An example assertion is I am ten feet tall.
This means I either am or am not ten feet tall.
I cannot be both ten feet tall and not ten feet tall at the same time.
You do not need to prove this assertion to be false.
When I provide my evidence, it will either confirm my assertion or disprove it.
I present a measurement of my own height, five foot nine inches, and it disqualifies my assertion from being correct.
You do not have to provide anything.
There may be cases in which I have evidence that appears to confirm my assertion.
Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me must provide evidence that either disproves the assertion, for example, providing video evidence of you at a time and place away from a crime scene to prove you are innocent of that crime, or to provide evidence to show that the evidence claimed in support of the assertion is at fault.
For example, if it is claimed you murdered a person and the blood on you is the evidence of it, if the blood is revealed through scientific testing to be cow's blood, it is not evidence that you may have killed a person.
It is at best evidence that you may have killed a cow.
Normally, people do not make assertions without evidence to support them, at least not publicly.
And so it is common for people to have to provide evidence that disproves an assertion, or the supporting evidence of that assertion.
However, if someone is making an assertion without providing any evidence, this is not required.
You do not have to respond to an unsubstantiated accusation.
It means nothing because there is no evidence to suggest it.
In absolutely no situation is it incumbent on the accused to provide first proof for or against any kind of statement, assertion or accusation.
Brian Levick, author of The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe, calculated the number of known witch trials by the average rate of conviction and execution.
Witch hunts killed approximately 60,000 people, primarily women, between 1480 and 1750.
This is an average of over 200 people publicly executed each year to a braying crowd.
There is no evidence for magic or witchcraft at all, and in modern times these seem ludicrously backwards, but these innocent women died because the people accusing them operated on a presumption of guilt, and the women were unable to prove the negative that they were not, in fact, casting spells and curses.
This is precisely the same principle that Western governments and terrorist surveillance are currently operating under.
If the government gains access to your personal data without your express consent, they have done what traditionally requires a warrant to do.
A warrant is defined by Wikipedia as a specific type of authorization, a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate the rights and affords the person executing the writ of the protection from damages if that act is performed.
A warrant is a legitimate document mandated by a socially agreed interpreter of the law which permits the transgression of a person's rights based on a pre-agreed condition.
This means that the government is not able to search your person, property or business without express permission derived from the authority of the law of the land and with the express purpose of finding information that pertains to the subject at hand.
The reason a warrant is so unbelievably important is that it is the actual enforcement of the principle of presumption of innocence.
It is automatically presumed that the person who is under suspicion of wrongdoing is innocent of that wrongdoing, and so evidence of the wrongdoing must be provided before a warrant can be issued and legitimate authority given to the person who is now charged to investigate you.
So what does it mean when the government collects information on you without a warrant, your knowledge or your permission?
It means that the government is now operating under the presumption of guilt on your part, the same principle that led to so many women being burned for witchcraft.
The principle remains the same, no matter what the era or subject, and it is no different whether it is pagans, witches, communists or terrorists.
The burden of proof is not upon the accused to prove they are not pagans, witches, communists or terrorists.
The burden of proof lies where it has always lain, with those making the assertions.
If you have done nothing to indicate that you are a terrorist, then the burden of proof lies on those who think you might be a terrorist.
You do not have to prove you are not.
You do not have to be subjected to any kind of treatment that implies that you are potentially a terrorist without sufficient evidence to support it.
When the government records all of your private data, data confirmed to be confidential in virtually every single terms and agreement that you sign when registering for a service, then they are directly stating that they believe you might be a terrorist and therefore must be investigated.
They do not have a warrant because laws have been enacted to subvert the need for a warrant.
When the government is collecting all your private data, it is no longer operating under a presumption of innocence.
They have already presumed you are guilty, which is why they are recording everything you do because something you do might give them a reason to arrest you.
If the government can act on such backwards and barbaric principles, how are they fit to be in charge?
When the government takes your information without reasonable cause for suspicion, then your rights under the law have been violated.
English law unilaterally states that the accused stand under a presumption of innocence.
You are not guilty until you are proven innocent.
It is a difficult job to keep an eye out for suspicious terrorist activity.
The British who lived through the troubles are well aware of that.
However, it is essential to maintain a free society that it remains difficult because when it becomes easy, the core principles of Anglo-Saxon justice are violated.
If our principles are not upheld by our institutions, we do not maintain them.
If you do not stand for your principles, what is the point of holding them?
If you do not stand for your principles, what do you stand for?
It is not if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide.
It is you have nothing to fear because you have nothing to hide.
If you are not hiding terroristic activities, there is no reason to suspect you are a terrorist, because no evidence of your terrorist activities can come to light, because you cannot prove a negative.
It does not matter if you have nothing to hide, that you have nothing to fear.
▲
Export Selection