Peter Berger, in Symbols of Tyranny in America, writes (emphasis added):
The “perp walk”, as far as I know, is a peculiar American institution. The police like to use it especially with high-status defendants, who would be particularly embarrassed by such public exposure. Beyond serving to enhance relations between the police and the press, the practice is also supposed to express democratic egalitarianism—look, we can do this to anybody—corollary: watch out, we could do it to you. The “perp walk” is what the sociologist Harold Garfinkel called a degradation ceremony. It serves no legitimate purpose whatever. Its only purpose is to humiliate and to show the helplessness of the “perp”. It is an egregious offence against the presumption of innocence. I know of no similar practice in any other democratic country (though it has been common in China). A faint parallel may be the “dock” in British courtrooms, also suggesting that the “prisoner in the dock” is guilty, but it does not have the humiliation and helplessness inflicted on the accused.
Berger's is an excellent and thought-provoking article, but that the 'perp walk' serves no legitimate purpose is arguably false, and for the very reason that Berger himself supplies without endorsing, namely, that it expresses the egalitarianism of a judicial system in which the high and mighty are held to the same standards as the rest of us. It is very important in a well-functioning society that the people believe that the law applies to all equally, that like cases are treated in a like manner regardless of the perpetrator's social or economic status. The 'perp walk' lets the people see that even the likes of Strauss-Kahn are subject to the law. So it does serve a legitimate purpose.
But I have to agree with Berger that it does offend against the presumption of innocence. You can decide whether this consideration outweighs the other.
Recent Comments