Such a public humiliation of the accused is known as a perp walk. The very term exemplifies its prejudicial nature by deeming the accused a perpetrator even before a fair trial. Any determination that the alleged crime even took place grossly influences the court of public opinion by not only portraying a suspect as a criminal, but actually referring to him as such in public.

The spectacle of the perp walk amounts to a public lynching from which the accused can never fully recover. His reputation had already been indelibly tarnished and his political life is all but over. His position in the IMF and candidacy for president were the first casualties of his arrest.

Defenders of the practice, which former mayor Rudolph Giuliani popularized to demonstrate the power of law enforcement, deem it a social equalizer in that all accused are subject to it. Such a principle ignores the fact that the famous receive an undue amount of public attention and thus they are subjected to far more publicized disgrace than all other defendants. Lack of a fair trail should not be an occupational hazard of notoriety.
Yet, shortly after Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “If you don’t want to do the perp walk, don’t do the crime.”

Though he has since walked back some of his earlier comments, such ignorance of a central value of our legal system — that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty — is particularly disturbing coming from our own mayor. Contrary to what Bloomberg thinks, the perp walk corrodes the presumption of innocence on which the rule of law rests. He seems to be confusing politics with law. Popular consensus determines elections, not convictions. Such mob rule would be a return to the time of witch trials.

Eliminating this treatment of the accused would not infringe on the police’s ability to maintain custody of an individual or guarantee his appearance at his arraignment. The NYPD currently places hoods over the heads of select defendants who are former police officers or police informants in order to protect their identities. Moreover, the police can easily transport prisoners in cars with blacked-out windows as is done in Britain and France. In France, it is even illegal to publish photographs of handcuffed criminal suspects. American defendants should receive the same safeguards from media harassment.

These measures must be weighed against the necessity of maintaining an informed democracy. While secret trials may protect the identity of the accused, they grant the state omnipotent powers to make arbitrary arrests outside of the public eye. Immunity from public awareness and protest empowers totalitarian regimes.

An alternative to accommodating the interests of both the accused and the public is to allow cameras inside the courtroom. Viewing the defendant as the jury presents him in a much better light, while informing and reassuring the community by displaying the administration of justice.

As a society, we must refrain from viewing Strauss-Kahn as guilty until he has had a fair trial. Standing up for the rights of the marginalized, including criminal defendants, has always been the best measure of the strength of our values.