I was not shocked with the news that rang in our ears and blew up our phones two weeks ago: Jian Ghomeshi acquitted on all five charges of sexual assault.
Conversations about the case and its outcome are emotionally charged and polarized. There seem to be two camps of opinion: victim blamers and survivor believers. This has created a fragmented and unhealthy discourse.
In reality, the outcome is much messier. The verdict does not mean he isn’t guilty, nor does it mean the victims are being blamed.
Like most, before his trial began, I was convinced he had it in for. When Ghomeshi’s lawyer cross-examined the victims, things started to change. But Ghomeshi’s lawyer did her job. She did everything she could to get her client acquitted. She isn’t to blame nor did she blame the victims in her approach.
She pointed to the incongruities in the stories and the acquisition of evidence by the Crown. She put on a show and revealed enough reasonable doubt to waive any chance of a conviction.
It is unfortunate that even if we might personally believe he violated these women, he can still walk free.
The fact remains that the aim of our current justice system is not to determine whether someone did it or not. It is to determine whether there is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. It is designed supposedly to err on the side of innocence to limit unjust convictions.
The judge mentioned this in his ruling. He said just because there was an acquittal does not mean the events did not happen. There was simply not enough evidence to convict. This is not the same as victim blaming or disbelief of their stories. This is a clear exemple of the system in action.
However, important questions arise when we realize we actually do not always err on the side of innocence like the judge did on Thursday. There are cases in which a person was convicted with much less evidence than seen in this trial. The reality is Ghomeshi is a man, and rich and famous. In those ways, he is not vulnerable to judicial systematic injustice.
But what about poor people? Black people? Muslim people? How about these vulnerable minorities who might have run-ins with the system? Do they get the same full assumption of innocence that the media granted to Ghomeshi? Do they have the same access to legal resources?
I do not think so. We are selective with assumption of innocence and erring on the side of justice. That is where the problem lies.
