"Our justice system has failed us. It is broken." Not since Casey Anthony have so many people with so little information been so strongly devoted to a belief, except that this time, race will be involved. Any why not? We're an evolved society. Why can't we keep invoking outdated ideals to explain injustice?
Because we're an evolved society, but we're pretty ignorant.
Those that feel that the Zimmerman acquittal is an injustice are ignorant. Those that believe the verdict was correct are ignorant. Those that report and share their opinions on this whole case are ignorant. That last one applies to all. Whether you get your news from Fox or CNN or even your own local affiliate, their reports are ignorant. And for those of you upset with me for calling you ignorant, because I actually did, your ignorance is only due to a lack of knowledge.
As am I.
Two people, who were each correct in their actions at the beginning of this event, made two bad decisions at some point during this event that eventually turned horribly wrong. In the whole history on man's existence, only two people know for sure what happened that night. One of them cannot speak for himself and the other we have but his word. Every other telling of this event is a guess at best. Yes, there were witnesses that saw or heard different parts of this event, but not one complete telling. There are witnesses not used by both the prosecution and defense that have their versions. They may not have used their testimony during the trial for one reason or another, but the Court of Public Opinion sure did.
I, like you, didn't sit through the trial and hear all the testimony. I didn't review all the physical evidence. I wasn't present during the sidebar and chamber conversations. I also wasn't with the jury when they deliberated. I saw bits and pieces of the coverage, and I sometimes caught recaps laced with opinions of the day's testimony. I, like you should, willing admit I am ignorant enough on this case to be unable to make a decision on this individual's guilt or innocence. And that's good, because that's how the justice system isn't broken.
No. The perception that it is broken is a result of the Court of Public Opinion. A Court that presents all information related to a case, regardless of validity, accuracy, and relevance. A Court that presents information based on their conclusions. A Court of millions upon millions jurors that simply want to fed key points and told what to believe. Fox during this would present that it wasn't about race and Zimmerman was just doing his job. CNN would convince you that we live in a society that black kids everywhere cannot walk in their own neighborhoods without being gunned down by racist vigilantes. Nancy Grace - well she was Nancy Grace; dismissing valid facts and opinions for either side for her one-woman crusade to pull the switch herself and then write a book about it.
Even if you didn't watch the news related to this case, you were still fed the biased-information. The Court of Public Opinion has branched out into the social media-sphere to even include an Appellate process that dismisses the established justice system's result. "Our justice system has failed us. It is broken."
But it isn't broken. It just doesn't align with the Public Opinion Courts.
There was little, if any, physical evidence that would convict Zimmerman. Remember how long it took to put him into custody and charge him? They cannot just do that because the public demands that they do it. Although that's pretty much what happened. "Well, we have him is custody and we charged him. I guess we need to sift through all this no-proof for a case." And they tried. You can claim that the Prosecution did a horrible job presenting their case and that's why Zimmerman got off. It's an even easier claim when you watched the Defense in action.
A knock-knock joke as an opening statement? And you won the case? I can see how people got pissed with the result.
Nope. Neither side should be able to claim victory with this trial. Just like the events of that night because result of two people independently making bad decisions (Zimmerman for getting out of his truck and Martin for circling around), this trial was the result of the Court of Public Opinion demanding justice. Unfortunately, opinion based of biased information can vary drastically compared to the decision of a jury after being presented with evidence agreed by both side as valid and pertaining to the case. A jury that is expected to enter into their seeing Zimmerman as an innocent individual. Remember that "innocent until proven guilty" snag our broken justice system has? This is where it applies.
Because of this, the Prosecution has what's called the Burden of Proof. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the charges brought against them. That can sometimes be a difficult task, especially if your proof includes eyewitness testimony of something that happened on a rainy night hundreds of yards away or while talking on the phone. Heck, people can't drive and talk on the phone and these guys have to prove that these people can talk and recall accurately a crime happening in front of them.
Which bring us to the less-daunting task before the Defense - reasonable doubt. That's it. Prosecution presents their proof and these guys try to get you to dismiss it, or at the very least - question it validity. Watch one of the Prosecution's witness testimony and ask yourself if you believe what they are saying the 100% accurate. Not that they're a liar, per se, but that their account is not 100% accurate. Now watch the Defense question their testimony, question their story, question any variants, question how they could come to that conclusion. The answers to these questions begin to create doubt about this witness's testimony. The Defense can even go so far as to suggest alternatives to the Prosecution's presentation of events, casting doubt of their whole case. They can do all of this without requiring their client to testify themselves, which happened here. They believed that they did such a great job in casting doubt on all of the Prosecution's evidence that they didn't even need their client to testify; which is good for them because the Prosecution would them be able to ask him questions, and that could go bad.
Nope. The jury went off to deliberate with specific instructions to weigh all the presented evidence and come back with a verdict. As the Defense hammered home in their closing arguments, a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or acquittal on the charge of 2nd Degree Murder (not premeditated murder). Unlike the Court of Public Opinion, Zimmerman when into that trial an innocent man, and after all the proof was presented, left an innocent man. Why? Because the system couldn't prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.
And that's for 2nd Degree Murder. Not Involuntary Manslaughter. They can only charge him with what they thought they could win. Also, remember, murder can get a life sentence and that's what people wanted; manslaughter, not so much.
I just don't believe that many of these criminal cases need the media attention that they get. I think this during all these coverages. The Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter, that Arias chick, the Boston bomber - I really don't care about these people. If their trials end in a conviction or acquittal then so be it. I firmly believe the system isn't broken. It works as designed. Is it 100% accurate? Nope. Is that bad. Depends who you are. If you're a guilty defendant and you get off, I'm sure you're happy. If you're the victim, you'll probably be upset. If you're anyone else, consider how you're truly impacted before galloping off on a crusade to change everything about our justice system.
nicely written sir.
ReplyDelete