Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Welcome to Tony Blair’s Britain. A place where the fear of crime – as opposed to crime itself – is used to justify the devastation of our liberties. The Prime Minister said on the BBC News recently that he was happy to reverse the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. The centuries old method of fair trial and “innocent until proved guilty” is to be replaced under Neu Labour with instant penalties and ASBOs. It’s all in the name of “respect”; a word dear Tony fails to comprehend. Certainly I see precious little respect for the electorate he is supposed to serve. The man even has the effrontery to challenge those of us who object to replacing law by precedent and proper burden of proof with “Tony says” with this utter tripe:

“Our critics, who usually do not live in the communities most affected by crime and anti-social behaviour, often describe these measures as overly punitive and a threat to basic legal principles.”

Damn right they are.

“We are criticised for introducing rough justice and removing courts from the sentencing process.”

Given that this principle reverses the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence, that is exactly what it is – rough justice. No amount of appeals will put that right. In a common law country the accused is innocent until proven guilty by presentation of the evidence by the prosecution before a jury for a bloody good reason. It prevents miscarriages of justice (well, reduces the likelihood) and in the process protects society as a whole. Conviction of the innocent is not only a crime against the accused; the guilty party is still at large having got away with it; case closed. That is why our system has evolved as it has – but never mind, Tony Blair knows best; after all, this is the 21st Century…

“But this is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not. It is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected given the changing nature of the crimes that violate them. And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all – freedom from harm by others.”

Apart from being priceless bollocks, this is the rambling of a seriously deranged mind… There is no tradeoff to be made with liberty. Liberty is our protection from the tyranny of the state. Tyranny that is being imposed steadily by an administration that treats individual electors with contempt. If you are in doubt, perhaps this little gem will make you think again:

“One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.”

There you have it; we are not individuals, we are numbers, a part of the collective. Sure, we have to rub along together and sure, we have to have systems that protect the many from the behaviour of those who would steal and murder. That, however, is a world away from penalising us all and treating us as criminals in waiting. When challenged during a BBC interview on Monday on the matter of seizing criminal assets:

The plans are controversial as suspects do not be [sic] convicted to have their assets seized and critics complain people that have to prove their money did not come from crime.

Mr Blair was asked if he was sticking to his principles on presuming innocence before suspects were proven guilty.

Blair said:

“You cannot deal with this type of crime by ordinary methods or by ordinary court processes. I genuinely believe that. I have tried it, it doesn’t work.”

So there you have it; the presumption of innocence is history. Perhaps next, we will be arrested for what we might do, so as to stop a crime from ever happening.

Suddenly, Minority Report seems less like fiction…

---

Addendum. I notice that wonko has picked up on this, too. He asks an interesting question:

“I saw a quote the other day by Traitor Blair which I can’t find now (if anyone has it to hand, please put it in the comments). He said something along the lines of the presumption of innocence was troublesome and it was a barrier to justice.”

Yes, I recall him saying that as well. Damned if I can find it either. I suspect that it was in the television interview. What concerns me is that so little has been made of it.