MURDER WILL OUT

On TV news I saw it. I shuddered. Nothing seems to change. “If you have nothing to hide,” said the police officer, “you have nothing to fear.” It was all about collecting voluntary DNA samples from people who might have been involved in the murder of an Orangeville woman, nurse Sonia Varaschin.

That is classic police doggerel. It is an excuse for every kind of surveillance, from phone tapping to opening mail. The police, at least this one, just don’t get it. I would presume that if the police have a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime, they can get a court order which literally suspends someone’s civil liberties in order to pursue a case against him. That’s harsh. But it’s fair.

At the risk of being branded “soft on crime” (I have another blog coming on that one) I have to stand up for civil liberties. We do live in a civil society. We do believe not only in the rule of law, but in the profoundly held doctrine of innocent until proven guilty.

When you ask someone to take a test to prove innocence, you run counter to that profoundly held belief. There are some jurisdictions in some other parts of the world where some accused bear the burden of proving innocence. We do it the other way around. Even though I have heard police officers say “we rarely arrest anyone who is not guilty” I still believe, and they are bound by law to believe that presumed innocence is n absolute right.

If I had somehow been living in the area or had been known as someone who knew the unfortunate victim, I might be approached by the authorities to give them a DNA sample. I would refuse. I do not believe I have an obligation to help the authorities judge my guilt or innocence. Even as an accused, the protection is still there. In a vengeful, sometimes bloodthirsty society, there is a craving for bloody justice. Lynching used to be popular for that very reason. And if I refused the police would consider me a prime suspect. "What does he have to hide," they will ask?

But we no longer lynch. We have courts that will make judgements based on information. An accused has the right not to implicate himself. In America that right is enshrined in the 5th amendment. I know. I know. It all sounds just too bleeding-heart permissive. Do the crime, do the time and all that stuff.

As imperfect as it may be, it is still an obligation we have. Summary conviction or Star Chamber courts are not allowed in a democracy.

If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that can be backed up with information, he is entitled to ask a court to give him permission to demand evidence.

I am no lawyer. I do resent the now-familiar “lawyering up” accusation that follows someone being charged or even under suspicion. The expression says that the minute you call for legal help you must be guilty. An innocent person would not “lawyer up.” That’s what too many people believe.

The law has limits and justice (as the sculptural renditions show) is blind. Even the most rabid lock-em-up advocate has to realize what the blindfold on the statue of justice means.

Of course I hope, as does everyone else, that the police will find the murderer. Doing it the hard way is difficult, but in a democracy, it is essential.