‘Not Guilty’ Does Not Mean ‘Innocent’
By Khalid A.
London UK
High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hassan says that our cricketers are ‘innocent unless proven guilty’. The same argument is used by our corrupt politicians. This is a flawed argument on two counts:
1. Firstly, if an accused person is not convicted by a court, the court’s verdict is ‘Not Guilty’ which is not the same as being declared ‘Innocent’. There is an important difference here. The ‘Not Guilty’ verdict may be the result of several factors such as, inefficiency of prosecution lawyers/police or a technicality of the law. Or maybe the criminal was too clever to have left any proof of the crime he committed. The court may give him benefit of the doubt, although the judge is 90% convinced that he committed the crime but the law requires 100% proof.
2. Secondly, there are cases where the accused is considered ‘guilty unless proven innocent’. One such situation is when a person is living beyond his known means of income and cannot prove the source of extra money. Another example would be when someone is found in possession of stolen goods.
Renowned cricketer Geoffrey Boycott writes (Daily Telegraph, 6 September) that selectors can decide not to select a player whose reputation is marred by strong and convincing allegations.
I agree with the above. A selection committee is not a court of law. They should choose a player of good reputation rather than one carrying a heavy baggage of damaging stories. It is like selecting a domestic servant who has good references rather than the one who was accused (though not convicted) of stealing.
Or consider the following scenario: A poor man accuses his 12-year-old son of wrongdoing because the child is wearing a Rolex watch. Can the child claim that he is innocent till proven guilty of actual crime of stealing? This is clearly a situation where the child is guilty unless he proves otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
