The law allows for any accused person to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. However, in many cases it feels as if defendants or the accused are guilty until proven innocent. Have we forget about the principles of the Consitution, due process, a fair trial and the ability of a defendant to defend his or her rights? It is very difficult to have an objective viewpoint about cases when you are only allowed to be presented a limited selection of the evidence or the opinions of print, visual and audio representatives that have already concluded if an accused person is guilty or innocent. I applaud freedom of speech. But, we are also obligated to get all of the available information before concluding if the accused person is truly guilty or innocent. There have been too many innocent people accused, convicted, sent to jail, died in prison or died as a result of the death penalty. Yes, there are plenty of guilty people, but remember that there are plenty of innocent people as well.
We are faced with high profile cases that stay with us due to an infinite number of reasons. In many of these cases, the verdict of the accused has already been tried and delivered. As a consequence, people follow one aspect of a perspective and may not consider all of the options or possibility that the accused may be innocent. However, many families have quietly endured one of their family members being accused of crimes or going through trials of innocent and guilty parties. It is difficult to get a fair trial when the selection of jurors have already been tainted by the dripping of information, presumptions, assumptions, some facts and misleading signals that we receive from select sources. It is difficult to be fair and balanced when you have already received so much of the assumptions and presumptions of all of the influences that exist on both sides of the argument.
I say we should put ourselves in the situation of the accused and their family. It is hard to be on the side of the accused or the side of victimization. Nevertheless, the Constitution still gives each person due process or so we say it does. It is hard to get due process and a fair trial when you have already been tried in so many mediums and delivered a verdict before you ever get a chance to plead your case before a jury or a judge. It is difficult to be on either side. Why should innocent people have to rebuild their reputations, while the accuser does not have the same burden or responsibility? Influence plays an imminent role in the ability of a person to defend his or her innocence and can be very difficult if you are up against power and money?
