THE STORY goes that Julius Caesar divorced his wife whom he suspected of infidelity.
Although she was tried and eventually acquitted, Caesar stood by his decision because of the now famous quote, “Caesar’s wife must be beyond suspicion.”
His tough and unforgiving stand set a high bar of moral standard for a public leader but it was seen as impulsive and arbitrary.
Over time, the modes of punitive judgment were subsequently modified through the formulation of laws prescribing exhaustive deliberation and ruling out the influencee of impulse and prejudice. Thus was born the creed of establishing guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.”
This legal doctrine was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction. It has been expounded upon by legal scholars, philosophers and even presidents, who occasionally quoted a formulation by British jurist William Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”
The judicial safeguard demands the highest degree of probity and impartiality among judges, especially in cases that might result in controversial or borderline decisions. Unfortunately, it is also vulnerable to abuse by some judges beholden to political benefactors or swayed by extraneous factors such as job security and material gain.
Such distortions of justice are compounded by corrupt prosecutors who deliberately withhold or degrade evidence, thus weakening the case and setting up a veil of uncertainty which a rogue judge may exploit to acquit an accused because of reasonable doubt. – JOSE B. MAROMA JR. <maromajoe27@gmail.com>
