Finally got a good answer to one of my questions here. In the past the SJC has interpreted the “strong presumption of guilt” as nothing more than “probable cause.” This is simply the threshold for indictment, before prosecution can begin. But as the SJC noted, once the trial starts, the burden of proof rests entirely with the prosecution, which is as it should be. The SJC was responding here to a session which believed that this threshold meant that, once indicted, the burden of proof shifted to the accused, which the SJC rightly rejected as false. My questions were provoked because it seemed to me that some of Steve’s antagonists were making the very same mistake. But the SJC gave some cogent reasons why the BCO holds to the presumption of innocence for the accused. This is all very good.
The bottom line is that Louisiana is judicially innocent right now, and will remain that way unless the prosecution proves that they were culpable in their examination of Steve. Provided the SJC applies this same standard to this case, which seems reasonable, my presumption of innocence question has been answered.
But here is the corner Steve’s adversaries have painted themselves into. Steve Wilkins is a minister in good standing; he is judicially innocent of all accusations made against him. He is judicially in conformity to the Westminster Confession because it has not yet been proven and shown in ecclesiastical court that he is not.
Now the remaining questions are whether Louisiana will be indicted for a failure to indict or a failure to convict. If it is failure to convict, then the prosecution would have an impossible case — the prosecution would have to prove that Louisiana was guilty of treating Steve as innocent when the SJC is simultaneously treating him as innocent. In other words, the SJC cannot assume Wilkins’ guilt — that has not yet been established. And if the SJC cannot assume Wilkins’ guilt, they cannot fault Louisiana for doing the same exact thing.
That leaves us with failure to indict. The SJC can find that in their judgment there was probable cause, and that charges should have been brought. So if that is what they find, what is the appropriate redress in a situation like that? Someone would have to bring charges. When those charges are brought, Wilkins would then be tried in some venue, and he would have the full presumption of innocence in that trial. The prosecution would have to prove that he was not in conformity with the Confession, instead of doing it the Internet way, which is to baldly assert that someone is out of conformity with the Confession, leaving him to try to prove his way back into conformity.
So this would be a real debate, a real confrontation, requiring real arguments. The accused would have the advantage, instead the current slander system, where the prosecution has the advantage. At the same time, genuine theological experts from both sides would be called to testify. It would be the trial of the century. Finally we would have a setting in which we all could define our terms and settle the matter. It would be fantastic. Throw us into that briar patch.