It’s easy to dismiss both as simply heated reactions by products of educational and sporting institutions that teach no better, but in each case the way the matter has been dealt with has made the situation worse.
Most decent people are taught the difference between right and wrong and when they choose the wrong path, can expect those in authority to punish them.
Most decent people would then show would then show remorse in that situation and promise not to repeat the offence after which it is consigned to history and they are judged by their subsequent actions.
Repeat offenders are punished harsher, and those who learn their lesson are forgiven and move on. Pretty simple stuff whether you’re a child stealing candy from a store or a bank robber, it’s how society works.
In the Luis Suarez affair with Patrice Evra, the man was caught red handed, what he did was unacceptable and so he was punished. The trouble was that he showed no remorse, that his club and his colleagues seemed to support his on-field actions and so the lack of acceptance of the offence and punishment could be interpreted as support for his wrongdoing.
This raises the whole question of Law.
Nobody should believe that a verdict of guilty is proof an offence was committed, it is simply a means by which the issue is brought to conclusion. It’s a matter of opinion, supported by evidence, but it’s not proof positive in all cases.
The decision is what matters as it ends the process of accusation and commences the process of punishment and rehabilitation. Failure to accept the verdict has an appeals process but if that is waived then the matter is closed.
In Liverpool and Suarez’s case the response to the case findings by the FA leaves the matter open and closure will now be difficult to obtain.
Whether Liverpool, Suarez and his team mates agreed with findings it was incumbent upon them to accept it and move on or appeal and try and overturn the verdict. They got their response wrong.
In the John Terry case there are 2 judgement errors brought about by the FA’s slow response in the main. Firstly it’s a fundamental human right to be innocent until proven guilty, and John Terry deserves that right as much as the next man.
The fact he was shown to be less than perfect in the Wayne Bridge affair, for which we has punished by removal of the England Captaincy, does not mean we can judge him in the Anton Ferdinand case.
To punish him again before the trial is wrong, if that’s what the FA did. They reinstated him and now they strip him again, the whole process undermines their status and brings the incident into a long draw out public debate when it should have been a quick decisive event.
For Capello to have further undermined his employers in public simple makes matters worse. He may not like what has happened but he should have dealt with it professionally and behind closed doors.
In all of this what we see is that due process works only because society accepts it.
The lack of education and the public standing of the protagonists give them no right to interfere in the means by which right and wrong is judged and dealt with.
If the FA were a Court of Law then the questions about a right of fair trial would arise in the Terry affair as it has been played out in public. And at the end of the day all we want is to see fairness done. It’s not the finest hour of anyone in either case.
By Steve Burrows CBE @ifollowsteve
Comments are closed.