No more incompetence

Mr. Andi Ghalib seems overly fond of the "presumption of innocence" concept, though he tends frequently to invoke it incorrectly. He seems on much less familiar terms with other important principles of law, notably those of probable cause and circumstantial evidence.

Under the principle of probable cause, when there is sufficient evidence that a law might have been violated, a law enforcement officer is justified -- some would say obliged -- to conduct a criminal investigation of the facts. The standard of evidence required to establish probable cause to investigate is lower than that required to prove the actual violation. Thus, someone who says there is insufficient evidence to conduct an official investigation, just because there is not yet the same level of evidence required for a conviction in a court of law, seems ignorant of the meaning of this basic legal principle.

Circumstantial evidence is another concept that Ghalib seems inexcusably ignorant of, for an Attorney General. Prosecutors prefer to have direct evidence of a crime, the proverbial "smoking gun." Lawyers must work harder when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, because circumstantial evidence (as distinguished from direct evidence) relies on a skillful presentation of inferences to prove facts. But circumstantial evidence -- that is, evidence based on inferences, is not a second-class form of evidence.

To see how effective the principles of probable cause and circumstantial evidence can be, we need look at only one illustration. Suppose a prosecutor has a current salary of Rp 7.5 million per month; this is the highest salary he's ever had in his life.

Yet mysteriously, one day he is found to have a personal bank account of Rp 13 billion. To accumulate this much in savings the prosecutor would have had to save every penny of his salary every month for 13 years -- assuming his salary had been this high for so long -- and all his Lebaran bonuses. This would be difficult, especially if his wife likes fashionable clothing (as one newsworthy prosecutor has just admitted).

In most places, a prosecutor's accumulation of such wealth under similar circumstances would constitute probable cause to investigate the prosecutor. And unless the prosecutor could give a credible explanation of how he accumulated so much money, this circumstantial evidence might be sufficient to find him guilty in a court of law of accepting payoffs in exchange for burying cases and ignoring evidence of crimes.

DONNA K. WOODWARD

Medan, North Sumatra