Of course not. The innocent are innocent and the guilty are guilty. The function of a fair trial with due process is to labor to ensure that no one confuses the innocent and the guilty. What we intend to communicate with that expression, “innocent until proven guilty” is that we are not to treat people, on the basis of a mere accusation, as guilty. We are not to treat people as guilty until their guilt has been properly established.
That we are not to do so, however, doesn’t mean that we don’t do so. Too many of us find an accusation sufficient evidence to reach a verdict of guilty. It’s not. Some years ago a well respected scholar publicly labeled me as a believer in Federal Vision. He was kind enough to footnote his accusation. If you read the footnote, however, you would have found this- I had published several men who later became embroiled in the controversy in Tabletalk magazine. Never mind that not a one of these men were published by me after Federal Vision became a thing. Also included in the citation were these words, “his writings.” That is, my embrace of Federal Vision theology was found in my writings. Not this writing. Not that writing. Nothing a person could actually look up. Just “his writings.” Fifteen years ago I publicly put out this challenge- show me anything I have ever written or spoken that is pro-Federal Vision. The challenge still stands.
My point, however, has nothing to do with Federal Vision. To this day people are strongly warned against having anything to do with me because of this. The false accuser has gone on to his reward. The narrative continues to impact my life. I’m not, however, guilty. I was not given due process. I was lynched. My guilt continues to be assumed, despite having neither a trial nor the beginning of due process. Again, this isn’t about me, but about due process and why it matters. Because people’s lives are ruined when guilt is assigned apart from due process.
Few of us, however, are in a position to manage the process of a trial. We don’t sit as judges in any kind of formal sense. What then can we do? We can maintain the principle. That is, we can keep from concluding someone is guilty who has not yet been given due process. That may mean holding off on judgment against someone who is guilty. It may mean keeping from convicting the innocent.
Which are the two reasons due process matters. It is bad enough when due process failures cast shadows on the innocent. It also, however, gives cover to the guilty. The guilty can point out their own failure to receive due process and in so doing avoid being determined to be guilty.
Truth be told, there is one ultimate reason to practice due process. Because the Judge of Heaven and Earth commands it, and will rightly judge those who make judgments before all the facts are known.
Amen and Amen!