| | |
|
JusticeForThePoor 10 - 04 Apr 2012 - Main.AjGarcia
|
| | Hearing about the Trayvon Martin case, I can't help but think about a past Moglen discussion. His observation that the criminal justice system
is just to the poor and kind to the rich can also be applied to how races are viewed in the court system and in public opinion. I was baffled in a recent Matt Lauer interview of Trayvon's parents. At one point he urged the family to not "jump to conclusions" and pass judgment on Zimmerman. Ummm...what?? Some cases are murky. Some have grey areas and nuance. What is so striking about Trayvon's case is the lack of nuance. I don't think there's been a case so public in recent years that has in fact be so void of complexity. | | | In my view, this case is an example of real people knowing what the real truth is, as Judge Day suggested in today's reading. Probable cause to arrest is a legal fiction and it is not what people are demanding. The wrong they have identified is that this investigation (or lack thereof) was conducted in a blatantly sub-par way. Perhaps the police were being prejudicial or racist, as many seem to think, or perhaps they were just lazy. Either way, because of this inexcusable error it may be too late to gather the kind of evidence our justice system (the lawyers) require to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. People are right to be angry that the system may have missed its window to do justice and to care that a legal fiction is intervening when what is right is what matters.
-- JessicaWirth- 03 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | Kensing,
First off, I think the last sentence of your contribution is tacky at best (and likely sounds much better to you than it likely does to other people--especially in light of the fact that Trayvon Martin was black).
Second, I feel like your twitter and facebook comment is a half-hearted attempt to integrate Eben's commentary on human memory in the digital age , but it feels deliberate and misplaced in the larger context of what you're writing. I don't understand the point of it.
I agree with your overall premise that we need to suspend judgment before we decide Zimmerman's guilt and I think this is a valid concern. This tragic case begs us to consider why a black kid wearing a hoodie--walking on the side of the street holding nothing but candy and iced tea--was followed in the first place. It is worth configuring this consideration into a larger discussion of race, class, and stereotypes. Why should wearing a hoodie and walking home warrant a 911 call (and even when the operator recommends that you not follow the kid, and do it anyway), harassment, and your eventual murder? It's not a logical leap to assume it had to do with the color of his skin.
The lesson this sends to children of color and their parents is that you should expect to be under suspicion, followed, and harassed--and maybe even murdered--because of the color of your skin and the clothes you wear. I think your gut instinct tells you that something is out of place: how can a good kid be followed and killed (by a cop beater) without even doing anything suspicious? Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman was standing his ground under a threat of candy and tea, what reasonable basis did he have to invoke this law in the first place? This doesn't speak so much of Zimmerman's legal wrongs as it does to the moral ones arising out of racial implications involved here and his immensely poor lack of judgment.
-- AjGarcia - 04 Apr 2012 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |