LETTERS: LEGAL IDEA IGNORES FUNDAMENTALS

To the editor:

John Bierk's guest column Aug. 6 ("A layman's proposal for arriving at truth in court") is an indictment of the adversarial system of justice. It is symptomatic of a growing mistrust of institutions that have generally served us well throughout our relatively short history. His commentary also betrayed a fundamental lack of faith in the ability of oridnary citizens to sort out the truth in a jury trial. I strongly disagree. I would suspect that if there was some kind of perfect Truth Machine, Bierk might advocate circumventing the entire judicial system (including the 5th Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination), have the defendant hooked up to it and dispense perfect justice according to the results.

Bierk seems so impatient with human shortcomings and failings but confident that the radical changes he proposes can straighten things out. One recalls his clarion call for a government-mandated invasive surgical procedure to prevent pregnancy among teens.

I am not completely clear as to what his proposed change entails. I would assume it involves a fundamental shift away from placing the burden of proof of guilt on the government to requiring the accused to prove his/her innocence.

Bierk is (on some subjects) reminiscent of Maximillian Robespierre. Robespierre, the so-called "Incorruptible," emerged as a leader of France during one of the stages of the French Revolution. He believed in the perfectibility of man and was determined to establish a "Reign of Virtue" at any cost. The results were tragic.

Many of us accurately feel that societal institutions are in need of reform. But are we ready to adopt the Bierkian position that we must, in essence, destroy them, and rebuild them from the ground up? I don't think so.

Our adversarial system of justice isn't perfect. Bierk evidently thinks his proposition will lead to or at least in the direction of some kind of perfect truth and justice system. It won't. By nature, human beings aren't perfectible. Neither are the institutions they establish. Attempts to improve them are fine. Insistence on perfectibility from those who claim to have the answer can have tragic consequences. The history books are full of examples.

Steve Mosley

Sikeston