You have to have been living under a rock if you haven't heard about the Trayvon Martin case. It has been in all the news. There have been rallies in multiple cities over the injustice. The catchphrases on signs and t-shirts du jour are "I am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon", phrases the family is aiming to trademark, apparently. "Justice for Trayvon." That's what everyone is seeking. Justice.
I don't know if that's the case here. Imagine, for instance, that the rallies and protests and unrest all force the police to arrest and the courts to try the villain, George Zimmerman. Imagine that the judicial system examines the testimonies and evidence and determine that Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. Imagine that a jury of peers concludes that Mr. Zimmerman acted within his legal rights. Would the crowds cheer? "Justice has been served!" Is this an acceptable outcome? Neither you nor I can imagine this.
No, we know what is expected. Based purely on the media's leaks of evidence, hearsay, and unsubstantiated testimony, we have already determined that George Zimmerman hatefully murdered this unfortunate young man who was minding his own business and did nothing at all to cause this cold-blooded, racially-motivated execution. Couldn't be anything else. If the courts determine that it was, the courts are wrong. No, no, justice is jail time as a minimum and, certainly more satisfying, a soon and public hanging. No, these crowds calling for "Justice for Trayvon" aren't mainly a justice mob; they're a lynch mob.
"Oh, sure," I'm hearing already, "protect the white man. Racist!." I'm tired of the racist card myself. I would like to see Zimmerman arrested, put in front of a judge and jury, and tried based on the evidence and verified testimony. I'd like to see what people with all the available facts conclude on the case. If a jury of his peers tells us that he's guilty, I'd like to see him punished to the full extent of the law. If they find him innocent, I'd like to see him released. You know, "justice for all."
But we don't live in that world anymore. Well, I'm not sure we ever have. In 1992 when a jury acquitted four police officers in the Rodney King case, we didn't get a "Whew! Glad that's cleared up." We got the 1992 Los Angeles riots. When CHP Officer Lee Minikus attempted to arrest Marquette Frye for drunk driving, he didn't get the support of the community to try the man in a legal court hearing. He got the Watts riots of 1965. Who knows how many black Americans were put to death by white activists for crimes for which they were accused but never convicted simply because of the color of their skin? The lynch mob was an unpleasant part of American history and it hasn't stopped yet. And it's not merely a racial issue. Herman Cain was forced to drop out of the presidential contest not because he was guilty of something, but because he was accused of something. I would venture to guess, in fact, that most people hearing the accusation that a male committed some sort of sexual crime -- anything from harassment to rape to pedophilia -- assumes he's guilty before any evidence or trial occurs.
American jurisprudence is founded partly on a basic principle: "Innocent until proven guilty." It carries with it a host of concepts such as the right to trial, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Founded on a presumption of innocence, the American justice system is tilted to sparing rather than convicting people. On the surface it seems like a good idea -- very civilized and mature. But we're not much for civilized and mature when the emotions kick in. So in the name of "justice", the crowds want Zimmerman to hang and the nation proves again that we haven't moved much beyond the old fashioned lynch mob mentality. If truth-in-advertising laws applied, we'd have to be crying, "Justice for some!" or, more likely, "Make the legal system do what we feel like at the moment and call it justice!" Of course, that's way too many words. Let's just call it "Justice for Trayvon" and know that's not really what we mean. Overgeneralization? Perhaps. But not much, I fear.
3 comments:
Shouldn't be "Justice for Trayvon", should be "Revenge for Trayvon". That would be more accurate.
Something I always found slightly annoying about the Star Trek series was that they believed humans would become better in the future. How you can look at history and current events and say it's getting better is beyond me. We are still sinners, doing whatever is pleasing to us. We will always be sinners until the day we die, at which point justice will truly be served.
I suppose from a purely biblical perspective disregarding divine intervention the sequence is "God gave them up to ..." rather than "things got better."
On the day the first OJ Simpson trial was expected to yield a jury verdict, the boss came around and asked us what we thought it would be. My answer was, “The jury will say not guilty. I happen to think he did do the murders. His behavior in the Bronco was just what I would expect if he had done them. That gash in his hand that he said came from a kitchen accident was not just some tiny nick.”
A coworker, who happened to be white, overheard that answer and asked, “Are you a racist?”
I was offended by that. I like to think that subsequent events have supported my contention that he was guilty.
Post a Comment