Posting a review on Amazon today, I read some of the comments left regarding Sion Jenkins' book, and realised again how many people are "convinced" of things for which they have no factual basis. One contributor wrote that the "whole of Hastings" knew Sion was guilty, before going on to say s/he wouldn't be buying the book!! Another wrote that he "hasn't been found not guilty by a unanimous decision." I always thought that, in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. Since Sion has never been found guilty by any decision, unanimous or otherwise, then he is, by definition, innocent!
It's not just in Sion's case, though, that we find this curious certainty in spite of the facts. The website dedicated to the Luke Mitchell case www.lukemitchell.proboards41.com throws up this phenomenon again and again, and if you check any of the online "newspaper" sites which invite comments, you'll find dozens of examples - try the South Wales Evening Post reporting on the Stephen Marsh case for just one sample.
So how is it that people remain convinced that the system works, that "they wouldn't/couldn't do that," that prosecution procedures are fair and honest, in spite of masses of evidence to the contrary?
Is it just too frightening a leap for people to accept that "the system" can, and will, do whatever it takes to secure a conviction, regardless, and indeed, in spite of, the facts? Is it because there is just not enough information being allowed into the public domain to allow the majority of people to make informed decisions, or because there are so many "scare stories" produced on a regular basis that wrongful conviction, which most of us assume would never happen to us, ends up way down the list of priorities when it comes to things to be concerned about?
No comments:
Post a Comment