Before I start my debate, I would like to wish NSL the best of luck and I hope that we can put on a good, testing, challenging debate.
With that being said, I will move on to actually answering the question at hand. The question I have been asked to answer is that due process ought to transcend the pursuit of truth in any court case. For the guys out there who had a hard time finding out what that meant, I will now give it a go in trying to explain to you what my view of this question means. When in a court case, the process that must be followed in proving someone is innocent or guilty should be more than rushing to conclusions and assuming that someone is tied to a verdict that they might not be.
Personally, I think I have been handed the correct side of the debate and I feel for NSL who will be forced to argue against the fact that people should be innocent until proven guilty. When you boil down the wordy question and leave it in the root state, this is essentially what is up for debate here. Now, I will ask you, the reader. Do you think that people deserve to be labelled as guilty because people have rushed to conclusions about their innocence? I, for one, do not think so. I still believe in the justice system and if the very fibre of the justice system breaks down, it is only due to the fact that no one will be able to get a fair trial because the outcome of said trial will already be pre-determined.
I am certain that you or someone you know, or have read about has been embroiled in a mess that they did not create. I am sure that the emotion that runs through their mind is astonishing and to be tried for something that you did not do must evoke a feeling from the accused that I cannot put down into words. Now imagine that you are that person, you know you are innocent but you do not have the proof to prove otherwise. Where do you go from there. If it is an especially despicable crime, you have been labelled for life. Like it or not, your life will never be the same. People will always look at you as if you did it and will never forget. Now, what I am trying to prove here is that if due process is dropped and the pursuit of truth is rushed through, your life will never be the same again.
For you see, in the end, it is only you who knows if you did or did not commit a crime. At the end of the day, police cannot jump to the conclusion that you did or did not do the action you have been banded to, they will follow leads and examine evidence and sometimes this will lead them to your doorstep. For example, let us examine a rape case in which the accused used to be intimate with the accuser. Let me paint you a picture with my imagination brush, shall I? The two people are perfectly happy until one day, the accused decides that things are not working anymore. The accuser takes this very badly and decides to get her own back after a particularly nasty split up. So, she tells the cops that she has been raped. She knocks herself around a little bit and makes a very compelling case that she has indeed been raped. Now, if due process was not followed, the accused would be labelled a rapist and would be sent to prison, where he would likely be raped. Now, the accused did not do the crime, you and I know that but do the police know that? Do the lawyers and judgers who attend the case know that? No, they do not.
Due process is the idea that the state should allow the accused to have the rights upheld under the eyes of the law and if found guilty, punished under it. Now, I will ask you once more, why should labels be put on people who are not allowed a fair trial or a chance to defend themselves. This is such a trivial matter and honestly cannot be answered against. The right of a fair trial should always, always transcend the pursuit of truth because without that one law, the whole fabric that binds the justice system and society in general would completely fail.
