These are necessities in every civilized country. They are
necessities here. Society employs the same methods of
self-protection the world over. No one presumes a person
charged with crime to be innocent, either in Delhi, Pekin,
Moscow, or New York. Under proper circumstances we believe
him guilty. When he comes to be tried the jury consider the
evidence, and if they are reasonably sure he is guilty they
convict him. The doctrine of reasonable doubt is almost as
much of a fiction as that of the presumption of innocence.
From the time a man is arrested until arraignment he is
quizzed with a view to inducing him to admit his offence or
give some evidence that may help convict him. Logically, why
should not a person charged with a crime be obliged to give
what explanation he can of the affair? Why should he have the
privilege of silence? Doesn't he owe a duty to the public the
same as any other witness? If he is innocent he has nothing
to fear; if he is guilty--away with him! The French have no
false ideas about such things and at the same time they have a
high regard for liberty.
Pages:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39