One of the cornerstones of modern criminal law is the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty, built bit by bit through centuries of English, British and now US legal history and precedent, till it has become so firmly entrenched in popular understanding that any watcher of Law and Order or The Good Wife could explain all the finer points and nuances absent any formal legal training. However, this concept is peculiar only to court proceedings, and other forums especially the extra-judicial court of public opinion has no qualms in pronouncing instant judgement on any and every case that passes before it. My affiliations with the Pennsylvania State University and the New England Patriots bring constant reminder that the wider public is willing to forego the niceties of trial in favor of a swift and satisfying public excoriation; if a trial must be had, the public would rather it be held, in true through-the-looking-glass manner, after the sentence has been served.
I have addressed my disappointment with the rush to judge Joe Paterno and there is no need to add to my earlier notes. But recently, a couple of cases arose that gave me fresh perspective on this issue, while reinforcing my basic viewpoint. While Joe Paterno lost his job in undeserved disgrace and that may have hastened his death, the court of public opinion does not often render verdicts with quite as serious ramifications. However, in the end, even a true judicial trial is shaped directly or indirectly by prevailing public perception and opinions, and when the wider public unofficially and oft times unwittingly decides a case before the accused has his day in court, it cannot help but have a significant bearing on the eventual outcome. And occasionally, those prejudices can have far reaching effects. It would be tempting to accuse the news media, and admittedly, they often play a role in shaping perceptions, but in the end, they can only mold and shape opinions, and it is up to each individual to weigh the available evidence and reach his or her own conclusions. To be sure, the news media can exert influence in the way it presents information, but more often than not, in my opinion, we reach decisions that match our own moral view of the world and seek to conform the evidence to our own prejudices. And often enough, we need to feel a certain moral superiority to the accused, ignoring our own failings, even when they match the character of the accused to an uncomfortable degree' mayhap we are especially harsh on the failings of others when we secretly see those same weaknesses within ourselves and seek to convince ourselves of our own superiority by shining a particularly harsh light on the failings of the other.
An excellent study, I feel, was the singular case of the New York Cannibal Cop. Gilberto Vale was accused, and initially convicted, of conspiring to kidnap and murder women with plans to cook them. His own words buttressed the accusations, lengthy discussions and plans on online fetish forums dedicated to cannibalistic fantasies, in which he described exactly what he would like to do to his prospective victims, and discussed making those plans reality with other members of the forum, including with their assistance. Yet, a slightly closer look revealed that there was little reason to believe there was any intent behind his fantasies, as his online descriptions of elaborate preparations had no parallel in reality. And numerous planned D-days came and went without any further reference to missed dates. Vale appeared to get all his fun from simply fantasizing; his fantasies were somewhat different from the norm, it's true, but hardly worthy of a jail sentence. Yet a jury of twelve good citizens were so horrified at the implications of his fantasies that they were willing to convict him for what can best be described as a thought crime. Mayhap these good yeomen were driven by an "ick" factor, so disgusted that they felt he deserved to be locked away and off the streets. Or perhaps, as I suspect, they were scared to admit that his fantasies while darker than their own, were still a reflection of our universal failure to live up to impossible ideals and rather than acknowledge their own perceived shortcomings, would rather shut away the reminder of their human weakness. What I am suggesting, through my pop psychology, is that we all have dark fantasies, often thoughts that we are ashamed to divulge to anyone and we are then scared to show any sympathy for a man portrayed as a monster by the Press and prosecution, since to stand by him might raise suspicions about our own secrets. Few reporters covering the case ever focused on the lack of evidence of a crime or even of criminal intent and instead began the discussion with his monstrosity as a given. I can imagine that no juror would raise a voice in defense of him in deliberations for fear of the censure of his or her fellows within the chamber. And so an all too human, and basically innocent (in all but angelic connotations of the word) individual was found guilty of enjoying thoughts that make the wider public uncomfortable. Not too surprisingly, his conviction was overturned by a federal judge - when the emotions of jurors were no longer at play, the facts of the case were insufficient to warrant a conviction.
My point here is not that Vale was an ideal person. But then again, he has no claim to perfection nor any need to it. If our deepest thoughts were subjected to the same scrutiny, few of us would remain at liberty. But we are so unwilling to admit our own nature that we would rather send a man to jail than admit that his fantasies are not so very different from our own. Perhaps we don't care about cooking and eating our fellows, even in fantasy, but most of us enjoy various guilty pleasures in the secrecy of our minds. And if one man is guilty for his thoughts then so are we all. And sadly, rather than acknowledge that we are all subject to dreams and fantasies, be it of a threesome with Hayley Westenra and Taylor Swift (oh! the music we'd make) or the chance to throw Adam Sandler off a very tall building, and that such dreams are quite normal, and that to feel guilt over them is as foolish as feeling warm when standing on a street corner in Phoenix in July. We do far greater damage when we pretend that we are above such petty feelings, especially when we feel that the only way to hide our own thoughts is to be particularly harsh on anyone else unfortunate enough to have their secrets laid bare to censure. And, boy! do we like to censure!
The recent hack of the adultery relationship site Ashley Madison offered another opportunity to us to really indulge our inner censurer. Some people are fortunate enough to be with their soul mates, some are not. Of the latter, some have the fortitude to stay true to their to vows or walk away, while others seek a measure of happiness outside their existing relationships. We do not walk in the shoes of the individuals and we should leave them to their own decisions insofar as their actions do not impact us. Yet, when a sanctimonious vigilante group published the information of all the Ashley Madison patrons, in the swirling media coverage there was nary a word defending the privacy of the thousands of men (and women?). And the general attitude appeared that they deserved what happened for failing at monogamy, that they had merely got their just deserts, and the moral rectitude of the watchers was mixed with more than a touch of gloating. Yet, no one deserves to have their private life ripped apart and exposed to the ridicule of the rude masses. And in truth, only a few of us could survive that level of scrutiny, and it would behoove us to show less smug righteousness and more empathy. It's not that the patrons of the service deserve a free pass, but the responsibility of issuing that pass, for most cases, lies with their spouse or partner and we have neither the right nor even the moral authority to pass judgement on them.
It is comforting to feel superior to one's peers. But if we are honest with ourselves, which is far harder than we would admit even to ourselves and in secret, we are few of us above reproach and have often fallen short of the ideals to which we hold our less fortunate brethren. And especially, if we would hold people guilty for their deepest and darkest thoughts, then perhaps none of us deserve to even escape the death penalty. But we are not, and should not, be held accountable for stray, or not so stray thoughts. Nor should we answer to the world for our private lives, except to to extent that we make the world a part of our private lives. And above all, we should recall and live the words of Polonious that we should "take each man's censure, but reserve judgment".
I have addressed my disappointment with the rush to judge Joe Paterno and there is no need to add to my earlier notes. But recently, a couple of cases arose that gave me fresh perspective on this issue, while reinforcing my basic viewpoint. While Joe Paterno lost his job in undeserved disgrace and that may have hastened his death, the court of public opinion does not often render verdicts with quite as serious ramifications. However, in the end, even a true judicial trial is shaped directly or indirectly by prevailing public perception and opinions, and when the wider public unofficially and oft times unwittingly decides a case before the accused has his day in court, it cannot help but have a significant bearing on the eventual outcome. And occasionally, those prejudices can have far reaching effects. It would be tempting to accuse the news media, and admittedly, they often play a role in shaping perceptions, but in the end, they can only mold and shape opinions, and it is up to each individual to weigh the available evidence and reach his or her own conclusions. To be sure, the news media can exert influence in the way it presents information, but more often than not, in my opinion, we reach decisions that match our own moral view of the world and seek to conform the evidence to our own prejudices. And often enough, we need to feel a certain moral superiority to the accused, ignoring our own failings, even when they match the character of the accused to an uncomfortable degree' mayhap we are especially harsh on the failings of others when we secretly see those same weaknesses within ourselves and seek to convince ourselves of our own superiority by shining a particularly harsh light on the failings of the other.
An excellent study, I feel, was the singular case of the New York Cannibal Cop. Gilberto Vale was accused, and initially convicted, of conspiring to kidnap and murder women with plans to cook them. His own words buttressed the accusations, lengthy discussions and plans on online fetish forums dedicated to cannibalistic fantasies, in which he described exactly what he would like to do to his prospective victims, and discussed making those plans reality with other members of the forum, including with their assistance. Yet, a slightly closer look revealed that there was little reason to believe there was any intent behind his fantasies, as his online descriptions of elaborate preparations had no parallel in reality. And numerous planned D-days came and went without any further reference to missed dates. Vale appeared to get all his fun from simply fantasizing; his fantasies were somewhat different from the norm, it's true, but hardly worthy of a jail sentence. Yet a jury of twelve good citizens were so horrified at the implications of his fantasies that they were willing to convict him for what can best be described as a thought crime. Mayhap these good yeomen were driven by an "ick" factor, so disgusted that they felt he deserved to be locked away and off the streets. Or perhaps, as I suspect, they were scared to admit that his fantasies while darker than their own, were still a reflection of our universal failure to live up to impossible ideals and rather than acknowledge their own perceived shortcomings, would rather shut away the reminder of their human weakness. What I am suggesting, through my pop psychology, is that we all have dark fantasies, often thoughts that we are ashamed to divulge to anyone and we are then scared to show any sympathy for a man portrayed as a monster by the Press and prosecution, since to stand by him might raise suspicions about our own secrets. Few reporters covering the case ever focused on the lack of evidence of a crime or even of criminal intent and instead began the discussion with his monstrosity as a given. I can imagine that no juror would raise a voice in defense of him in deliberations for fear of the censure of his or her fellows within the chamber. And so an all too human, and basically innocent (in all but angelic connotations of the word) individual was found guilty of enjoying thoughts that make the wider public uncomfortable. Not too surprisingly, his conviction was overturned by a federal judge - when the emotions of jurors were no longer at play, the facts of the case were insufficient to warrant a conviction.
My point here is not that Vale was an ideal person. But then again, he has no claim to perfection nor any need to it. If our deepest thoughts were subjected to the same scrutiny, few of us would remain at liberty. But we are so unwilling to admit our own nature that we would rather send a man to jail than admit that his fantasies are not so very different from our own. Perhaps we don't care about cooking and eating our fellows, even in fantasy, but most of us enjoy various guilty pleasures in the secrecy of our minds. And if one man is guilty for his thoughts then so are we all. And sadly, rather than acknowledge that we are all subject to dreams and fantasies, be it of a threesome with Hayley Westenra and Taylor Swift (oh! the music we'd make) or the chance to throw Adam Sandler off a very tall building, and that such dreams are quite normal, and that to feel guilt over them is as foolish as feeling warm when standing on a street corner in Phoenix in July. We do far greater damage when we pretend that we are above such petty feelings, especially when we feel that the only way to hide our own thoughts is to be particularly harsh on anyone else unfortunate enough to have their secrets laid bare to censure. And, boy! do we like to censure!
The recent hack of the adultery relationship site Ashley Madison offered another opportunity to us to really indulge our inner censurer. Some people are fortunate enough to be with their soul mates, some are not. Of the latter, some have the fortitude to stay true to their to vows or walk away, while others seek a measure of happiness outside their existing relationships. We do not walk in the shoes of the individuals and we should leave them to their own decisions insofar as their actions do not impact us. Yet, when a sanctimonious vigilante group published the information of all the Ashley Madison patrons, in the swirling media coverage there was nary a word defending the privacy of the thousands of men (and women?). And the general attitude appeared that they deserved what happened for failing at monogamy, that they had merely got their just deserts, and the moral rectitude of the watchers was mixed with more than a touch of gloating. Yet, no one deserves to have their private life ripped apart and exposed to the ridicule of the rude masses. And in truth, only a few of us could survive that level of scrutiny, and it would behoove us to show less smug righteousness and more empathy. It's not that the patrons of the service deserve a free pass, but the responsibility of issuing that pass, for most cases, lies with their spouse or partner and we have neither the right nor even the moral authority to pass judgement on them.
It is comforting to feel superior to one's peers. But if we are honest with ourselves, which is far harder than we would admit even to ourselves and in secret, we are few of us above reproach and have often fallen short of the ideals to which we hold our less fortunate brethren. And especially, if we would hold people guilty for their deepest and darkest thoughts, then perhaps none of us deserve to even escape the death penalty. But we are not, and should not, be held accountable for stray, or not so stray thoughts. Nor should we answer to the world for our private lives, except to to extent that we make the world a part of our private lives. And above all, we should recall and live the words of Polonious that we should "take each man's censure, but reserve judgment".
