In Haiti There Is No Presumption of Innocence
I was struck by the irony of it all - abandoned and orphaned children being delivered to another orphanage by apparently well meaning Americans - while the government of Haiti cannot deliver even the most basic essentials to its people. They cannot take so much as water to their own but they presume American missionaries are trafficking in children. Sick. That is the single word to describe their miserable failure. And these missionaries who have traveled from thousands of miles away and were simply taking helpless children to another orphanage are - by the government of Haiti - presumed to be criminals. Here is how it was reported:
"But the prime minister said some legal system needs to determine whether the Americans were acting in good faith - as they claim - or are child traffickers in a nation that has struggled to fight exploitation of children."
I will not presume the guilt of Americans who spent their own money to go to the aid of children, and neither would our judicial system. Not in our country. Not in America. And that is just one of the important differences between the greatest justice system in the world and every other. We do not presume guilt, we require proof. And no criminal defendant in this country has to prove innocence. We presume you are innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. Yes - people are arrested and held before trial, but they are not used by the government to shift focus away from their own failings.
America. Filled with people who would give up their money for others and travel to tragedy to try and save children. We do not have to apologize here. And maybe the government of Haiti should spend a little more time trying to save its own children.
It's not about the presumption of innocence.As we should have learned after the Vietnam babylift, when well meaning Americans took hundreds of babies, many of whom were not orphans, well meaning is not enough. Simply because we think we are doing good doesn't mean we are. It seems the height of arrogance to me that Americans would take children out of Haiti before their status can be determined.
Thanks Beth but I disagree. Haiti has a long history of problems with child-trafficking, and these folks are not part of that problem. I agree that their actions were ill-advised and poorly planned. But criminal conduct (whether presumed or not) is the result of a criminal mental state and a criminal action. The PM is not really concerned about these 33 kids or the Baptists who were transporting them to another orphanage in the DR. This is simply a diversion from Haiti's bigger problems. Glad you commented - and I appreciate your opinion.
I agree with Beth that this has nothing to do with presumption of innocence. You write that "criminal conduct is the result of a criminal mental state and a criminal action" and imply that the Baptists are not engaging in criminal conduct because they don't have either. And you have the authority to say that because? Do you know them personally? Did you interrogate them? Are you certain about their motives? Can you read minds? How can the Haiti government be sure that "they are not part of that problem" without investigating them? After all, the fact is that they were taking children out of the country. That is not something ordinary people do. Investigating whether they were justified in doing so does NOT presume that they are guilty. It is the government's duty to ensure these kids are not victims of trafficking and that their status is properly determined.
Like Beth says, well meaning is not enough. You admit their actions were poorly planned. Planning properly to make sure your actions are in accordance with the law is just as important as "meaning well". "Oh, but I meant well!" just isn't going to hold up in court.
As for whether making a big deal out of this was simply a diversion from Haiti's bigger problems, I would agree that it was. But still, this has nothing to do with presumption of innocence.