Thursday, March 17, 2016

presumptuous

The Atlantic has published "How Did the Oklahoma City Bombing Shape Merrick Garland?," by David A. Graham. At least one paragraph of it seems not to make any sense:
On one occasion in the Oklahoma City case, Garland displayed some skepticism of the presumption of innocence. [Michael] Tigar, defending [Terry] Nichols, pointed out that his client had turned himself in to the police shortly after the bombing. (McVeigh fled after the bombing.) Quoting the Bible, Tigar said, "The guilty flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Garland dismissed the contention out of hand, with a somewhat confusing reply: "He came in voluntarily after he knew he was being looked for. That does not suggest innocence." (Would running away have been more exculpatory?)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes any sense to use a biblical verse when deciding whom to prosecute. Says the first part of the verse, "The guilty flee when no man pursueth." This doesn't apply to Timothy McVeigh, who was in fact being pursued. The verse is flawed for our purposes.

"Garland dismissed the contention [if that's the right word] [viz., the contention or whatever it was of the second half of the verse] out of hand." Good idea on Garland's part. "He came in voluntarily after he knew he was being looked for. That does not suggest innocence," said Garland. Garland was right; it doesn't suggest innocence because it doesn't suggest anything. Or it does suggest anything you're inclined to have it suggest, which means it doesn't suggest anything. (Yes, that's right. Because it suggests anything, it doesn't suggest anything.) It could suggest innocence, it could suggest that he wanted a better deal, or it could suggest he didn't want to get his whatsits shot off while fleeing. Or some combination. In hindsight, we now know that Nichols wasn't innocent, suggesting that Garland was right to reject the contentionoid.

In spite of all this, the most troubling part of the paragraph comes at the beginning. "Garland displayed some skepticism of the presumption of innocence." This appears not to be true. Furthermore, the prosecutor doesn't need to presume the defendant's innocence; it might even be a bad idea.