There are "good laws" and there are "stupid" laws — laws that make sense to the average person and laws that do not seem to make any sense to anyone and the principals of the judicial system are even more confusing.
But there is one issue that makes sense to me. One that is fundamental to all human rights. That is the presumption of innocence.
According to our United States legal system, those who are accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, which must collect and present enough evidence to convince a judge and jury (who are ordered by law to consider only the facts, testimony and evidence) that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, the accused must be acquitted.
The presumption of innocence has been quite popular in the 20th century. The United Nations incorporated the principal in 1948 into the Declaration of Human Rights. In 1953 the principal was added to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On April 3, 2009 the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Band Assembly group consisting of chief executive Marge Anderson, secretary treasurer Herb Weyaus, district 1 rep. Sandra Blake, district 2 rep. Marvin Bruneau and district 3 rep., Harry Davis each signed their names to a letter to all Band members stating the complete opposite of this very basic fundamental human right.
The letter states: "The former Chief Executive has still not proven her innocence in tribal court..."
In other words, the government of the Mille Lacs Band believes that people are guilty until they prove they are innocent.
When I asked the solicitor general Rjay Brunkow about that, I said it sounded backwards to me. He did not agree with the word backwards. So I changed it to opposite. The result was the same. He told me in no uncertain terms, he believed that is the law. That when the Band created their statutes, it was originally innocent until proven guilty. But that changed sometime in the 80s or 90s he said, to be more in lines with tradition.
His explanation sounded more backwards to me than the original thought, so I did some research.
My sources tell me that at one point it was tradition for the accused to be guilty until they proved they were innocent. The accused had to basically run a gauntlet and if they survived, they were found innocent.
That tradition was changed and deleted completely in the 90s because it was such an extraordinary violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act.
Current Mille Lacs Band Statutes annotated Title I, Civil Rights Code, Section 12, states in no uncertain terms:
"In any criminal legal proceeding each person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Read it for yourself at: http://www.millelacsojibwe.org/statutes.asp
So, here it is in everyday language: everyone should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.
I just wonder which interpretation is opposite? The April 3 letter to the Band, or the Mille Lacs Band statutes?
Now that is something to ponder.
Peace.
4 comments:
The presumption of innocence is the ruling concept in U.S.law. Neopolitan Law is the accused is guilty why else would they be accused and must prove their innocence. This is the basis of French Law. If it has changed, it has been fairly recently, after WWII. The French culture was transplanted to the new world in certain areas hence the belief of guilt before innocence. The native tribes of the east, Six Nations, had the trial by gauntlet. The accused would run to prove their innocence or guilt. If the person of the tribe felt they were innocent they would tap the accused. If they felt they were guilty a killing blow would be delivered. Six nations is a warrior culture hence the severe trial but Six Nations also provided the US founding fathers with a lot of ideas for the US Constitution. For instance, "all men are created equal" that is not a european idea. The spirit of one for all and all for one is a tribal belief that is incorporated in many tribal nations around the world. It goes toward that harmony thing. The spirit of the law is a hard concept. Most lawyers follow the letter of the law to prove their point and exam each word for meaning. Most politicans use lawyers to get their point across. The presumption of innocence is a way to give the individual a chance against the power of the law enforcement structure. It looks to me the Mille Lac power structure has over looked the spirit of the law and gone to politics to gain an end. Just because you say it is so don't make it right. Has the Mille Lac Band gone Neopolitan?
Bob Cristobal
Dear Mr. Cristobal,
I am always intrigued by history. If we all could learn from our forefathers, life as we know it would be different. Your post is a very interesting history lesson. I heard the stories of the gauntlet and of how the accused were guilty until they passed the test. But I am still a little confused about your post. Are you saying that the Mille Lacs Band statutes Statutes annotated Title I, Civil Rights Code, Section 12, is NOT correct when it says in black and white "In any criminal legal proceeding each person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty?" Or are you saying the powers that be in the MLB governemnt structure have overlooked the spirit of law? "Just because you say it is so don't make it right?" To whom does that statement point?
The spirit of law is a hard concept to grasp. I totally agree that most attorney's examine each word for meaning. For example, proving the "intent" of one accused is probably the most difficult to prove, and to understand. But it is one word on which many attorney's bridge their cases.
Words are amazing things.
Sorry Vivian for not being clearer. I tend to jump around a lot when I write. The concept of guilty until proven innocent is a concept based on Neopolitan law setup by Napoleon, a dictator. You can see the advantages that would hold for the establishment. Yes the Mille Lacs Band statutes Statutes annotated Title I, Civil Rights Code, Section 12 is black and white. Innocent until proven guilty. But and it is a big one, if you state a position in the media or in public long enough people will tend to believe it. If you look for proof of guilt and not innocence you can amass enough evidence how ever slight to support your case. For instance "Have you stopped beating your wife?" However you answer will leave alittle doubt. A picture of your wife hiding her face presented correctly can leave an illusion. If you believe in innocent until...then you look for hard evidence and let that prove the case. The spirit of the law, to me is what is the intent. A person stealing food for a child who is hunger is almost forgivable. No forgivable. Yes a crime was committed according to the letter of the law. In the spirit of the law, a childs hunger can be reason enough to override the deed of stealing. My opinion. A cultural belief always colors the intent of the law. In a clumsey way I was trying to show that Rjay and company was skipping over the cultural belief by repeating an unproven accusation as proof of guilt and using Neopolitan viewpoint to do it. Clearly this is involiation of Mille Lacs Band statutes. His intent is clearly political and not judicial. My opinion. Melanie is a band member and receives band benefits, which in some case is quite large. Many band members have received upgrades to their homes and help in sustenance. Shown in a different light it can intimate wrong doing, which is what is being done politically now. Melanie has not had her day in court. So yes the MLB government is over looking the spirit of the law and gone into a political venue to improve their position was the point I was trying to make. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding of what I had written. My opinion, I believe you take care in verifying your stories and present both sides.
Peace through understanding,
Bob Cristobal
Thank, Bob. I totally understand now.
Post a Comment