Perhaps this is all too obvious, but it is true that our judgment is somewhat clouded when different factors coincide with each other. It is also difficult given our personal affiliations, biases and preferences - however hard we try to suppress them. And it is especially easy for 'neutral' newspapers to influence us.
Whatever is in fashion at the time, the law will always hold some sort of certainty and stability - especially in criminal cases. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty; to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt - these foundations are essential. Why are these so essential?
Let us consider the recent case of DSK, the head of the IMF, and compare the situation of Julian Assange. The similarities - sexual offences, massive media coverage, cries of conspiracy. The prime difference - politics.
Although there is the added spice of cultural differences - the French 'seducer' and the Australian/Cyber-national nomad, we are sometimes instructed to think in a certain way due to our political beliefs. Is this the end of a creditable Socialist challenge in France? Or does this threaten the resurgence of technology-led anarchism?
But nevertheless, serious criminal charges must be investigated - the wider political milieu will have to wait or if it gets fed up of waiting, go on without them.
No comments:
Post a Comment