Blackstone meets Greenwood

The recent dropping of attempted rape charges against Manchester United starlet Mason Greenwood has drawn mixed reactions from all quarters. Guardians of morality have been critical of the criminal justice system, dubbing it a farce that principally serves the interests of the elite. Rationalists, however, welcome the decision, noting the overbearing nature of the presumption of innocence in an inherently adversarial ecosystem.

It is imperative to note that the overarching justification for the dismissal of the charges is the Blackstone principle. The principle holds that it is better for ten guilty people to escape than for one innocent person to be convicted. To this end, failure to establish and sustain damning charges against an accused person necessitates their release from the shackles of trial. In Mason's case, the withdrawal of key witnesses and the emergence of new material substantially weakened the case stacked against him. For the sake of argument, it would be farcical to suppose that the viral video footage alone would be sufficient to have the lad convicted. To protect accused persons from malicious prosecution, the threshold in criminal cases is significantly higher. This is not, however, an admission that the withdrawals imply innocence. The two are mutually exclusive.

What the court of public opinion must understand is that legal disputes are resolved through the presentation of credible evidence, its corroboration, and its relationship to the law and facts at hand. Anything that falls short of this standard is unsustainable, and the outcome is not only predictable but certain. Be that as it may, a dismissal does not foreclose a case, meaning that a trial can be reopened upon the aggregation of new data.

Vengeance must always be tempered with justice. At the crux of the matter lies the inescapable reality of restorative justice. Despite the deafening noise that calls for the termination of Greenwood's contract at the club level, we must appreciate the fact that this can only be unilaterally sanctioned upon the establishment of fault. Mason's actions are inexcusable, but if both parties decided to bury the hatchet and settle the differences diplomatically, then the world has no business interfering.

This is a conscious pursuit by two people whose objective is to do away with the dark weight of history and plan for brighter futures. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and similarly, legal issues are legally discerned. The least we can do is let the proper channels provide the recourse sought. After all, the wheels of justice grind slowly but finely.

Karl Simiyu, UNLJ law review editor