PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: THE STUDY OF DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER IN KHADRA’S THE ATTACK

Abstract

With an emphasis on how the book creates, negotiates, and challenges the idea of being "presumed guilty," this study examines Yasmina Khadra's The Attack as a story of character defamation. The P.E.A.C.E. model, created by Shawar, Milne, and Bull, is essential to this inquiry because it offers a systematic framework for examining investigative procedures through its five stages: Planning and Preparation, Explaining and Engaging, Closing, and Evaluating. The study uses this model as a theoretical framework to examine how Khadra incorporates investigative elements into the fictional story to emphasize social perception, defamation, and the delicate line separating guilt and innocence. Researcher used a qualitative methodology, and this study examines significant passages in the book where the protagonist's integrity and identity are questioned by institutional and personal actors. According to the analysis, Khadra portrays defamation as a psychological and existential burden in addition to a legal or social phenomenon. The protagonist's battle serves as an example of how defamation damages interpersonal relationships, calls into question one's professional credibility, and worsens the suffering of those who are torn between suspicion and evidence. The results imply that The Attack functions as a multifaceted story of character defamation, where literary storytelling and investigative logic converge. The study highlights Khadra's capacity to highlight the damaging force of suspicion and the long-lasting effects of being stigmatized as guilty without adequate validation by referencing the P.E.A.C.E. model.