THEORY OF ASSUMED PROBABILITY

2019.07.22

I have seen a number of media websites reporting, UNP national list parliamentarian Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero's statement claiming, if clinical tests were to be carried out on so called aggrieved mothers in Dr. Shafi's case, it is highly possible that the results might not help to send the said doctor to jail and this should be prevented. What he proposes is to consider this situation as extraordinary and on the fact that so many mothers have complained against Dr. Shafi, he should be found guilty. Said thero also points out that the said doctor has performed surgeries within an unusually shorter period of time when it comes to Sinhala mothers.

However, this situation has to be evaluated within the boundaries of "presumption of innocence" which is implemented under Article 13(5) of the constitution and also the fact that a criminal charge must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, whatever said and done by Ven. Rathana or whoever it is, it has to pass the said hurdles in order to find Dr. Shafi guilty.

Therefore, each and every fact must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and none can be taken as evident facts. Also the complexity of the matter is not an excuse for the evidence to be evaluated otherwise. Showing that something is simply probable will not prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the theory Ven. Rathana thero proposes simply suggests accepting the fact of sterilization as evident and also suggests accepting some other intermediate facts which were only suggested by the said assumption. That is simply making more assumptions on another assumption. Therefore, Ven. Rathana's theory can be identified as a "theory of assumed probability". Will this be sufficient? Is it even sound?

Let us apply the same theory into some other matter. Arresting drunken drivers became a popular topic due to the recent increase of fines and increased number missions carried out by motor traffic officers in the recent past to capture drunken drivers. But no one has ever heard neither of a judge nor a police officer, who was arrested for the sole offence of drunken driving, unless an accident is involved. It is also more unlikely to see a lawyer in the dock for the same offence. K.D. Lal Kantha was the only recognized politician arrested for drunken driving in the recent past.

What happens if Ven. Rathana's "theory of assumed probability" is applied to the said facts about drunken driving? Then it suggests either the said categories of people never consume alcohol at all, or they never drive after consuming alcohol or all of them have drivers. Can we accept any of the above assumptions as absolutely true?

That is how it is, when the said "theory of assumed probability" is applied. One might argue in the first look, that the said "theory of assumed probability" should only be applied to cases as complicated as Dr. Shafi's. But I ask, why not? Because both matters are related to criminal cases and in the event it is accepted and applied, a suspect will end up found guilty.

People might not like the concept of "presumption of innocence" but it is implemented through the supreme law of the country for very good reasons of course. What Ven. Rathana Thero's "theory of assumed probability" suggests is the complete opposite, which is "presumption of guilt". Can it prevail as a legally sound argument? Certainly not.

Then why this argument is raised at all, if it does not support the prosecution case at any level? We don't know, but one of the assumptions we can reach is that they do not want this to end quickly. They want speculations to go on and on until they fulfill some other goal (maybe political or racial) in the light of the said speculations.

If someone wants justice, the best way to achieve it is by opening all the facts and possibilities. Then after the evidential battle, the truth will prevail and it had in so many times. "Theory of assumed probability" is just like a girl claiming that she has a tick in her vagina and refusing to let anybody help, just because of shame. Will this go anywhere? Of course it will make chaos but nothing more. Therefore, it has a greater importance in understanding, who stands to gain in letting speculations to prevail.