I agree with the letter Cop has right to see redress in court. It is important to understand that there are two parallel courts in operation in all societies. First the criminal court, second the Court of Public Opinion. You may win one but lose the other.

There was a landmark case in the United Kingdom where a person accused of rape, after his acquittal, decided to sue his accuser. He claimed he lost his job, his friends, his whole life, because of a "lie". The judge ruled that he was not entitled to do so.

There was a lot of debate in the legal fraternity. One may ask "what is the legal recourse if a person is wrongly accused?" The Law Lords decided that allowing alleged rapists to sue the alleged victims would only create a climate of fear and deter victims from coming forward.

Some suggested then to hold all rape trials behind closed doors and ban the media. The Law Lords also disagreed with this as they felt secrecy would hinder the function of the court since potential witnesses would be unaware the case was pending and thus not come forward with vital information.

So, what's the solution? If you are accused of a crime, you are damned if you did it and damned if you did not do it. The most famous example is the Michael Jackson child molestation case. The court clears him but the masses don't. His music career is now ruined since most people think he should have been found guilty.

The problem lies in the limited capacity of the court which can only evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the evidence constitutes "guilt beyond reasonable doubt". The court cannot come to a conclusion that you are "innocent without a doubt".

Which is why under Islamic Syariah law, you cannot accuse a person unless you can provide four witnesses of good moral character. This perhaps explains why Michael Jackson is planning to start a new life in the Middle East possibly Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.