The Danger of Presumed Guilt There was something different about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, although the coverage that focused on race, hoodies, gun control, and the criminal background of the victim distracted from what it was. The media has been blamed recently for raising this case up above others where young men have also been tragically killed and for making it about race. Perhaps that is just, because although race may have been involved, the reason this case resonates so deeply has nothing to do with race. It has to do with equity before the law and the fact that our Constitution, designed to protect all of us, was silently subverted. It resonates on this level because the poorly written laws that applied to this case undermine the rule of law, and if they are allowed to stand will erode our criminal justice system. Forget about race for a moment, forget about gun control and all the poor decisions that were made that night, any of which could have saved Trayvon Martin had they been different. None of those are the reason this case resonates with us, although they may well amplify its resonance. The reason it resonates is because our laws failed to protect an innocent citizen of the United States. Instead, the laws as written allowed one person to become judge, jury, and executioner without having to justify his actions other than to state a frame of mind. His statements had to be accepted, as he was the sole witness to the events. The other witness was dead and unable to plead his case. No legal case that must overcome reasonable doubt can be built upon proving a frame of mind. Psychology has not yet advanced to the degree that we will ever be able to prove what was in George Zimmerman’s head. We will never know if he is a racist, whether or not he truly feared for his life, or if he knowingly provoked a confrontation. Clearly, there is reasonable doubt and he must be found ‘not guilty’ according to the law. This is not synonymous with ‘innocent’. Conversely, we do not know what Trayvon Martin was thinking. We were denied that opportunity because he was not arrested by an officer of the law, but was killed for some real or imagined threat he presented. Who gets to decide whether or not he was a threat? That becomes a key question, because according to the foundations of our justice system, Trayvon was, and is, innocent until proven guilty. He deserved the same due process that George Zimmerman got. Instead, he was killed and was denied all of his rights – legally, because of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Clearly, in confrontations like these, the individual that lives gets to tell the story. The individual that lives can inject reasonable doubt into the events and walk away ‘not guilty’, but never innocent. Who will speak for the dead? In American Jurisprudence, that is supposed to be the law, but in this case, the law was faulty. According to ‘Stand Your Ground’, the dead are always assumed guilty – not innocent – otherwise the law would not apply. A person can’t invoke ‘Stand Your Ground’ if they are not being attacked, so when it is allowed as a defense, the presumption of guilt falls on the dead by default. If the dead person was the defendant, we would not, and could not, allow this according to our laws. Why do we allow the law to presume the guilt of the dead? Why, if this is the case, should anyone be able to invoke ‘Stand Your Ground’ without first proving that the dead person was definitively the aggressor by the same standards of reasonable doubt as the living are mandated to get by law? The precedent set is clear, and the defense of murder used under the cover of this statute will be very hard to prove. If two rival gang members, regardless of race, get in conflict and one kills the other with no witnesses, the survivor can legitimately say he feared for his life and ‘stood his ground’. The rapist who confronts a woman who fights back before he can rape her can say she attacked him and he was defending himself. Road rage incidents can become homicidal and no one needs to back down or use better judgment to avoid escalating the conflict, because as long as it is the other party that ends up dead – the survivor can’t be held liable for ‘standing his ground’. The unfortunate lesson here is to shoot first and make sure only one version of the story gets told. The law and the justice system is then put in the position of rubber stamping the execution orders of the public against the dead, who are not presumed innocent, but guilty. The dead are denied due process, a jury of their peers, and their life. The survivors are granted a free pass, based on a state of mind that can never be prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the core injustice of the Zimmerman/Martin case, and it is a threat to our entire system of law. Yes, many other young men, and black young men have died and are also tragedies. Yes, we still have an issue with race in this country. Neither of those is a reason to pay attention to this case. I also reject the notion that this case was singled out to improve news ratings. None of those are the real reason this case resonates. It resonates because its repercussions threaten all of us. It resonates because it defies our American ideals of equality before the law, innocence until proven guilty, and due process. Legal minds will eventually determine if these laws are Unconstitutional, but clearly, they subvert justice. That is why this case resonates and offends us deeply. It also confuses us, as we are forced to make sense of how to compromise these clear injustices with the idea that we as Americans have a right to defend ourselves. We need to find a way to have these ideals co-exist, and we can. It comes down to a balance between rights and responsibilities. We should have the right to defend ourselves – all of us, equally before the law. Conversely anyone who acts as judge, jury and executioner must be prepared to take responsibility for those decisions before the law. ‘Stand Your Ground’ eliminates that responsibility and must be changed – before another person is denied their rights to due process and is buried under the assumption of guilt.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:22:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015