Protecting the Innocent

One of the basic underpinnings of every civilized society is the responsibility to identify and find those who commit crimes, and hold them responsible for their actions. When these crimes attract considerable public attention, pressure quickly builds on the authorities to act swiftly in locating the perpetrators. But it is crucial that proper safeguards are in place to ensure that the innocent aren’t hurt in the pursuit of justice.

A classic case was when Raymond Donovan, then-Secretary of Labor under President Ronald Reagan, was forced to resign in 1985 after being indicted on charges that included larceny and fraud. Two years later, he and his co-defendants were acquitted on all charges.

“To which office do I go to get my reputation back?” Donovan asked.

That is the question that Paul Kevin Curtis is presumably thinking now.

As widely reported in the media, Curtis was arrested last Wednesday on charges that he sent ricin-laced letters to President Barack Obama and other officials. After six days behind bars, Curtis was released Tuesday morning on bond. Hours later, prosecutors filed a one-sentence brief in federal court. Saying that “the ongoing investigation has revealed new information,” they announced that they were dropping the charges. While the charges were dismissed without prejudice, which means they could be re-instated if prosecutors so choose, it appears probable that the wrong man had indeed been arrested.

Did authorities move too quickly in making the arrest? Should suspects have the choice of having their names withheld unless or until an evidentiary hearing concludes that there is enough reason to charge them?

These are some of the questions that need to be asked, and answered, in the wake of this apparent wrongful arrest. As important as it is to hunt down the real criminals, it must never be at the cost of the freedom and reputation of the innocent.

This article appeared in print on page D42 of the April 24th, 2013 edition of Hamodia.