Following up on the issue of why a person “presumed innocent” isn’t deemed actually innocent, what of the person whose name is released to the media, for revelation to the world, that he is a “person of interest, but is never charged?” 

If a person charged with a crime, whether by accusation in a sworn instrument or indictment, is tarred with the perpetual taint of being guilty,even if proof falls short, what of the person who is disclosed to the world as the person the government believes to have committed some heinous crime, but who is never charged? 

Is this better or worse?  Sure, the person is never put on trial, and therefore never runs the risk of conviction.  But on the flip side, his name will forever be associated with the crime, and the fact that the government (which knows everything) believes him to be guilty.  But he never has the opportunity to challenge the government’s accusation, whether to prove his innocence or just refute the allegations and prevail by the technicality of being found “not guilty.”

Consider how this plays out in the normal course:  The government floats its accusations, which become the myth of the case in the media and can be repeated over and over, as if these are irrefutable facts.  The “person of interest” may well have evidence to show that the story is ridiculous, false, totally concocted.  But he can’t use it.

The “person of interest” has an attorney who tries to dispel the accusation by announcing that the person is totally innocent.  This is just typical attorney nonsense as far as the public is concerned.  It means nothing.  The government has provided the media with a laundry list of evil deeds, and the attorney has done nothing beyond a overarching denial of wrongdoing.

Often, the attorney will have plenty of specifics to rebut the allegations in the media, but he’s not going to spill them to the first reporter who calls.  This is what he needs at trial to fight the case, and giving up his information early just gives the government a preview of the defense and a chance to construct its case around it.  If he can disprove a claim, they will circumvent the claim and find a different way to smear the “person of interest.”

It’s a quandary.  But let’s get to the stage where there’s no accusation or prosecution.  Google the name and there it is, in perpetuity.  The government said so.  The media said so.  The poor guy can do nothing about it.  He will never have the chance to counter the allegations and clear his name.

The person of interest is neither presumed innocent nor actually innocent.  Yet he was never charged with any crime ever.  Still, his name will forever be associated with the commission of a heinous crime, with the government’s imprimatur of accuracy, and there will never be an opportunity for him to challenge it.