Guilty until proven innocent. This is the basis of U.S. jurisprudence.

What? You say I’ve got that wrong?

Innocent until proven guilty, you say?

Give me a second to ask the Internet.

Okay, I’m back! I can’t believe we support such a crazy idea in this country!

You were correct though, it is “innocent until proven guilty.”

You’d never believe that looking at various articles, videos, podcasts, and similar on that self-same Internet.

I watched as a leftist piled on to the accusations of a given individual on one of those podcasts. To be fair, such foolishness is not the sole province of those on that side of the aisle.

He accused him of at least impropriety, and really, of more or less unwitting criminal behavior.

Here’s the thing. As I understand it, the accused individual says there was some sort of investigation, maybe even the initial intent to file charges—and possibly more—whether against him or others I cannot say, not being privy to that information.

Based on all I know to this point though, no charges stuck (if applied at all)—neither to the individual, nor to others.

Furthermore, no civil action of any kind appears to have occurred against anyone.

Even so, the person pointing fingers insisted he wouldn’t count the statements of the one at which he pointed them, as worth attending, much less believing.

Ignoring whether the supposed offender was asserting things one might prove or disprove, it’s pretty obvious the person counting him so was taking the “guilty until proven innocent” approach.

What makes all of this worse? It’s bad enough the “court of public opinion” is prone to counting people guilty with no data, much less trial, or conviction.

From what I’m seeing—at least for certain classes of people, if not generally—this problem is working its way into the actual police and court systems.

There was a prominent story in which an individual was accused of a series of misdemeanors.

Ignoring the fact that the “crimes” in question were nothing more than accounting errors, over which no criminal penalties would typically be applied.

Putting aside the idea that the individual being put on the spot was not shown to be responsible for—or potentially even aware of—the supposed infractions.

The statute of limitations for the wrongs assumed done had already run out.

In order to bring the actions questioned back under the purview of the legal system, it was stated the accused was guilty of a still-in-force felony, which was tied to the aforementioned misdemeanors.

Two problems can be stated where this narrative is concerned.

The first? That the felony the person is supposed to have violated was never stated in a concrete manner.

This leads to the second. If no felony was ever stated, then no indictment, charge, or trial for such could ever occur—and as far as I’m able to tell, none did.

This means the minor crimes were revived, stacked on a major one for which no trial—much less conviction—was ever had.

I’m no “legal mind.” Even so, it seems unreasonable to me, the person being charged could even have a case brought against him much less, be convicted on the merits of such.

The problem? The man was tried and convicted of a series of out-of-statute misdemeanors, elevated to felonies, on the information I present in this piece.

Let me be crystal clear. If’ I’m incorrect in my assertions, I’m more than willing to be brought to rectitude.

Standing alone, this would be bad enough. The concern is, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum..

I work to not identify the folks about whom I speak. That’s partially for their protection, but also to make what I say as timeless as possible.

The two individuals about whom I’ve spoken to this point, are unique—that is, they’re not the same person.

Further, where they have largely similar outlooks, their view of the World by no means matches, or even comes close to doing so.

The funniest part of this? If I said a black man was accused of armed robbery, even when it’s obvious he committed no such crime, were he brought to trial, and found not guilty, anybody should be incensed if folks then counted him guilty of the crime in question. That’s really true race and sex aside.

Yet I see it common for people to assume guilt where certain people—often those with whom they disagree politically—are concerned.

Here’s what you need to understand. There are a number of high-profile individuals I believe are almost certainly guilty of various crimes.

Do I think they should be “locked up?” Only if it can be shown they’re guilty via completely proper legal proceedings—and even then, the punishment should fit the crime.

You see, I don’t care who you are. In my mind, you should be given due process—keeping in mind that means “that process which is due you legally,” no less, no more.

I refuse to count anyone guilty of some wrong for which they haven’t been given that process, or upon receiving it, have not been found culpable.

It doesn’t matter to me their politics, religion, beliefs—in fact anything other than lawfully established guilt—and frankly, even that should be subject to review.

For those out there who choose to assess blame upon souls for whom such has not occurred, I have just one question, “What on Earth are you thinking?”

If I were to call you a murderer and assert it to be true with no proof, would you think that acceptable?

If I then used that as a basis to discount your perspective—facts be damned—would that be okay?

It’s my fervent hope you answer that soundly in the negative.

Have you chosen to count the unconvicted guilty of wrongdoing—even if only in the court of public opinion?

Do you discount such folks, facts aside?

I sincerely hope the answer to both questions is a strong, “No.”

If you cannot currently respond in that way, today is a new day!

Please, in the name of righteousness, reconsider your position.

“Others will still do wrong,” you argue?

If others commit murder, does that make it acceptable for you to do likewise? I hope you don’t think so.

As usual, here’s hoping you’re doing well. If not, I pray you come to be in that place in the very near future.