Not So Fast Shanoff

In a column titled “Not So Fast Eddy”, Alan Shanoff criticized defence lawyer Edward Greenspan for comments reminding us what “an acquittal means”. Mr. Shanoff’s criticism is essentially that just because an accused is found “not guilty”, does not necessarily mean he is “innocent”. “People are free to believe what they want”, writes Shanoff, “either before, during or after the trial and no legal presumption can change that”.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2009/07/12/10104191-sun.html

In the purest sense of the concept of innocence, Mr. Shanoff is correct – a “not guilty” verdict is not synonymous with real innocence. Events written into the fabric of the universe do not necessarily correspond with human belief or our interpretation of them. Assessing possible reasons as to why an accused is found “not guilty” Mr. Shanoff speculates:

Perhaps the jury believed the accused is guilty but had a nagging reasonable doubt. Perhaps the jury wrongly chose not to believe a witness.

Maybe

Perhaps the jury wanted to hear from a witness who didn't testify. Maybe the jury just didn't understand the evidence. Maybe the jury didn't like a witness. Maybe the closing argument of the prosecution just didn't cut it.

Mr. Shanoff conveniently forgets to add the most important possibility: Perhaps the evidence actually demonstrated the accused was innocent or perhaps the jury actually believed the accused was an innocent man.

My point is, though a not guilty verdict is not equivalent to a verdict of innocence, it is wrong for people, like Mr. Shanoff, to conveniently disregard the most important possibility in a trial: that the accused may be innocent “in fact”. Most importantly, I think we should all be just a little concerned about any suggestion that the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are little more than technical rules allowing guilty people to go free. These principles do not exist merely to protect the accused, they exist to protect the innocent!

Just as a finding of not guilty does not necessarily mean the person is innocent, a finding of guilt also does not necessarily mean the person is guilty. Believe or not, Canada’s criminal justice system has actually convicted innocent people. David Milgaard lost in excess of two-decades of his life on this planet after being wrongly convicted for murder.

Indeed, people can believe whatever they want. The Vikings believed in Norse Gods. People once believed the world was flat. A jury believed David Milgaard was guilty. Belief is not synonymous with truth. Mr. Shanoff apparently believes Michael Jackson is a pedophile. If Mr. Shanoff really wants to disparage a person after his death by insinuating he is a pedophile, perhaps he should offer some evidence on the subject. Belief without more is irrelevant.

David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer
http://www.calgarydefence.com/