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.
