Not too long ago, Sean Hannity was ranting about the fact that police officers should be given the presumption when involved in controversial shootings. I agree with him. Any person accused of any crime should be afforded the presumption of innocence. Only problem is that Hannity doesn’t seem to agree with me on that one. He is condemning Hillary Clinton for defending the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl back in 1975. The man maintained his innocence of the rape and even passed a polygraph test. But Hannity points to the fact Clinton claimed it “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs” because she "knew" he was guilty.
All of which begs several questions. How exactly did she “know” the man was guilty? Did she witness the rape? And the why does Hannity jump to the conclusion that he is guilty based solely on Clinton’s opinion and in spite of the polygraph results? He doesn’t seem to value Clinton’s opinion on anything else. Why does Hannity think the opinion of a person’s court-appointed lawyer should negate his or her right to the presumption of innocence? And why should that lawyer’s opinion be used as a justification to deny him or her an aggressive defense? Any lawyer who aggressively defends a client in spite of his or her personal opinion about the case should be praised for their professionalism – not criticized.
Hannity not only criticizes Clinton for defending this man, but he also seems to think no one should have defended him. Why does Hannity think this accused rapist is any less deserving of the presumption of innocence that those police officers that Hannity was so vocally defended? Keep in mind that he was never found guilty of rape in a court of law, although he did plead guilty to a lesser charge fondling a minor under the age of 14. In Sean Hannity’s world, presumption of innocence is only applied selectively.