The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the American criminal justice system. It is also a cornerstone of the American republican ideal. It is the fundamental difference between being a citizen and being a subject. A citizen has rights that are not subject to abridgement even if a majority wills it; rights that exist by “natural law” and outside the purview of any state. A subject’s rights, if any, are conditional upon the will and whim of the state and the powers that control it.
Want your rights to be subject to the whims of the likes of this guy? Me neither.
In recent decades, we have surrendered more and more of our prerogatives in the name of safety and security. In the name of our own protection, we have come to accept being treated as incipient or actual criminals.
Recently, I read cri de coeur from a man who has had his access to pain medication restricted in the name of cracking down on the opiod crisis. He is not an addict and does not abuse his relatively benign pain meds (Tramadol). But because others do, he must jump through bureaucratic and legal hoops when what he needs is simply to reduce his pain. He has done nothing wrong, yet he is punished for the wrongdoings of others.
This is the same principle applied in recent gun control initiatives in Oregon: The response to heinous crimes is to turn the law-abiding into criminals by confiscatory fiat. It is the same principle that leads the regulatory state to assume that a guardian is at least potentially ripping off his ward, requiring evidence that this is not so, rather than having the burden of proving that it IS so.
The impulse to surveil and to regulate is not by any means confined to government. Employers keep their employees under surveillance and impose intrusive drug testing even for substances that are legal in their states. Social media companies sweep up our data as assiduously as any national security state. We stare at our screens and the screens stare back.
It would be foolish to oppose any all regulation that seeks to head off trouble before it happens. We need to know that our food, air and water are clean and safe. And regulation is the only tool we have to restrain the vast intrusions upon our privacy that come with the digital age. But the regulatory hand should be as light as possible, especially upon the individual citizen, and should carry a heavy burden of proof that any regulation is necessary, proportional and actually effective. Left unaccountable, regulators will always seek to further and further regulate, as the hammer seeks the nail.
What is most alarming is the degree to which we are willing to acquiesce to being treated as suspects — and subjects. The words “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” should never pass the lips of an American citizen, whether the matter at hand is national security or drug policy or simply walking down the street. As long as you’re being treated as a subject rather than a citizen, you’ve got plenty to worry about every day.
Matthew says
Good piece!
Thanks Matthew.
Jim says
Great points. All true!
I am currently hearing hour 15 of 50 of the Solzenitzen’s Gulag Archipelago. (I have more dive time then reading time..) There’s a lot of that in his world. Anytime the personhood becomes cog-hood, preemptive administrative justice becomes a necessary maintenance to keep things moving efficiently.
When Doctors are more worried about inquiry than the patient or professors teach mumbojumbo so as to avoid the Twitter mob then the person becomes less of a person.
Thankfully far from Soviet Gulags (fingers crossed) but still a good lesson in mob mentality.
Even if the mob is “there for our own good”!
“Anytime the personhood becomes cog-hood, preemptive administrative justice becomes a necessary maintenance to keep things moving efficiently.” Recent experiences serving as my uncle’s guardian and conservator have proven this truth. I will be writing about it on these pages for next week. And stick with Solzhenitsyn — one of the better books ever written about anything.
Breaker Morant says
Re-The Gulag Archipelago
If you are about 1/3 of the way through, you have the best part ahead of you.
I first read them about 20 years ago and, while I found the first book to be a bit of a slog, I found Books 2 and 3 to be transcendent.
Interestingly, I started re-reading them last winter and I found Book 1 much better than I did then. Possibly, the difference between age 31 and age 51.
Anyway, I got about halfway through Book 1 and I decided that I should read more on the Russian Revolution and I started down that road and lost the trail.
Anyway, Solzhenitsyn also has some good stuff about materialism and the spiritual crisis in the west and so forth that might be good RIR fodder.
I have too many books to read on Frontier Partisans type stuff-but, lately, I have been drawn down a philosophic direction that I never saw coming.
RLT says
The reaction to the opioid crisis is beyond belief. The same doctors who ten years ago were handing out oxy like candy because they were getting paid by Big Pharma are now taking away meds from people who need them because they’re being paid by Big Government.
Hell, even for the folks who ARE abusing their prescribed pain meds, taking away that ‘scrip isn’t going to help. If that approach worked, the H market wouldn’t have exploded like it has—which is, by definition, impossible to regulate in any way, shape, or form.
People can’t get their meds, entire Mexican states spiraled into chaos from drug violence, and overdoses and fentanyl are a goddamn public health crisis.
And, now that the government has taken away everybody’s pills, it has removed what little leverage it had in this situation and given it to black market drug suppliers. Now THAT’S the way to handle a public health crisis.
Who elects these morons, anyway? Oh, right…
Yep.
Concise and well stated.
Traven Torsvan says
Rather than tackling our broken healthcare system that’s caused the overpresciption of opioids or the greed of the pharmaceutical, we’d rather inflict needless suffering on the innocent. Neoliberal policy making in a nutshell.
Judging by the militarization of our police and the ugly stats of our so called justice system, (take a look at the percentage of Americans behind bars) we’re already subjects
lane batot says
Sadly, I’d have to agree. But The Guvmint doesn’t want us to realize that, or we’d be harder to control. So that still gives us a teenie bit of leverage as “citizens”, since we can force(in some scenarios) the semblance of citizenhood for guvmint lip-service sake, and accomplish some good and hang onto some slight freedoms. Reading constantly about U.S.Guvmint manipulations of Native Americans over the centuries(as I do, that being a favorite subject of mine–NOT the manipulation of a more powerful guvmint, but the SURVIVAL of much of cultural value DESPITE the Guvmint!), I see little difference or improvement, alas, from then till now, in the production of mendacity. Just finished that SPLENDID recent accounting of Red Cloud’s War, where the U.S Guvmint was brought to it’s knees(mainly by it’s own impatience and superiority syndrome, as much as by Red Cloud’s guerrilla war)–if only briefly, alas. So much of that deceit and manipulationin present times is now turned on we so-called “citizens”, who have become in effect, the “New Injuns”.….
Saddle Tramp says
It all comes down to balance and we [are] way out of it. Everyone is glued to their corners and opportune any chance to dominate their voting bloc. It is beyond reasonable in both extremes. Laws do not appear from nowhere, but we are most definitely in a strong trend to throw out the baby with the bath water. It may come down to a straw on a camel’s back. I think we are dangerously near that. Take a deep breath. The complications and consequences are immense…
Jim says
I’d venture to guess that the majority of the population are reasonably normal in their thoughts and actions. While common sense can seem like a super power, I think those who possess common sense also possess an interest to just live their life and not spout inane ideologies.
Extreme political views both left and right are always interested in ginning up their base. Their base after all rewards them. financially, emotionally, even existentially. The rest of us aren’t that motivated to play that game.
But we are trapped. Pounded from all sides we fall prey to “the big lie”, whatever that lie is. It changes all the time. So we say to ourselves, those leftists are going to take over or Hitler is reborn!! Then we vote in ways that satisfy that Twitter, news media, Facebook induced lie and we create a self-fulfilling prophecy. And we support our side because that’s all the information we have. The lesser of two evils.
If somehow, all could be silenced and we could see actually who says what and who really believes what, we might realize that maybe 60% or more are pretty normal. If they had their way they would work it out between classic liberalism and classic conservatism.
Unfortunately every Tom, Dick and jackass can scream at the top of their lungs when in the past they were roundly banished from polite society and ignored for being the jackasses they are.
Because now all that really matters are clicks.
“If somehow, all could be silenced”
There is a classic DOCTOR WHO serial, “The Destiny of the Daleks.” Though technically cyborgs, the Daleks wiped out emotions and other biological ‘weaknesses’ so–aside form anger, rage, and xenophobia–they are logical creatures.
They come up against the Movellans, a race of humanoid androids.
The two races reach a logic impasse–both have enormous battle fleets, standing ready, computers calculating the precise moment of advantage to attack …
… for 10,000 years, because they cannot out logic each other.
The way to break the impasse?
Neither side understands that all they need to do is SHUT OFF THE COMPUTER and force themselves to do something illogical and unexpected.
They more social media swirls and spins into a darkening cesspool, I think about that story. Often.
Saddle Tramp says
A very adept analogy Paul…
My take is that you do the best with what you have and with what little influence you can make towards the whole. I am afraid the rest is baked in the cake and I take it that is for a reason as illogical as it all appears. Chaos is a creator. A controlled chaos in its myriad ways and mysterious ways. An existential puzzle. The only choice we have is to overcome inertia and go at it with everything we feel is right. Disagreement is always inevitable. The ability to change one’s mind is necessary for the survival of one’s sanity unless you settle for blindness and ignorance. The survival mechanism is an overarching tool that can both save or get in the way. Nobody yet owns the final solution and I sure don’t want to pull the trigger on that. We are caught in the prisoner’s dilemma based on our instinctual distrust of the unknown. Everyone has their own agenda (hidden or otherwise) and perspective of where they stand. Therein lies the rub and therein it will always be what must be overcome. In my opinion WW III should be a war to save nature (and ourselves in the bargain) but I could never be so naive as to think it could happen. Let’s hope against hope narrow mindedness does not prevail, but I won’t hold my breath. Speaking of breath, London got rid of archaic and poisonous energy methods from the 19th century, but now we have created another fire breathing dragon. The flame never get’s fully extinguished in spite of St. George’s efforts.
We keep chasing it, because what other choice do we have…
Jim says
Ahh Dr Who. Good stuff! Between that and Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy I believe there is an answer to it all!!!
Saddle Tramp says
Also, regarding a “presumption of guilt” never presume where one can scan. Who is doing the scanning makes all of the difference. Incidentally I went to see the 45th Anniversary of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS and a tribute to Albert Finney at Laemmle’s Royal Theatre under the proscenium. An all star cast in 1974. Jacqueline Bisset was one of them and also starred with Albert Finney in the great film adaptation of Malcolm Lowry’s UNDER THE VOLCANO directed by John Huston. Jacqueline Bisset did a Q&A before the film and was lovely, charming, intelligent and is holding up very well I might add. Anyway, the tie-in here is the premise of Agatha Christie’s murder mystery. The number 12 plays a significant role in the moral conundrum presented. Presumption is unraveled in a never dull manner. I do not want to spoil it for any of the initiated. My favorite co-star was the Locomotive and those wonderful Pullmans …
Enjoyed every inch of wonderful celluloid last night. A film all about presumption and moral justice…
Saddle Tramp says
That would be “ the uninitiated” …
Blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other it seems! It’s a damn good thing I ain’t runnin’ the world for sure! I would not vote for myself either.
lane batot says
I am MOST appalled, these days, by the BLIND ACCEPTANCE of just any and all propaganda–a lot of it completely manufactured wholesale, and the rest just skewed enough to support one side or the other(politically speaking). I have already become rather calloused to it all, and NEVER automatically believe ANYTHING reported about anybody or any situation, without some further investigation, which USUALLY proves the lie or the twisted exaggeration, that is now “par for the course”. And not that this crap has not always gone on in human politics, but it is OFF THE CHARTS now, and resembles nothing so much as STOOOOOPID cyber mob shouting. Can’t trust the News or any of the formerly somewhat reliable sources. However, SOME factions are QUITE accurately readable, from what spews from their OWN MOUTHS publically–they ARE their own worst enemies, and should not be very hard to distinguish, and one citizens should NOT wish as political leaders. At least from my primitive(but humanely universal) perspective. What is so fearsome is the MAJORITY now that just REFUSE to see what is right in front of their noses(on BOTH sides…), conjuring up that time-tested old saying, “you are never more blind than when you REFUSE to see”.….
Jim says
It seems modern politics has devolved into a need to be morally demanding (your own morality not universal) rather than be factually correct. We used to say that reprehensible act meant “the ends justify the means” and call it out when it was tried. Perveyors of that logic would never admit it. Now, who cares. Truth means nothing because truth is no longer seen as meaningful. My truth, your truth whoever’s truth.
If nothing is really true than all that is left is power and the acquisition of it. If my megaphone is bigger than yours than I am more right than you.
Saddle Tramp says
“Both pessimists and optimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist, the parachute.”
— George Bernard Shaw