Friday, December 5, 2014

INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)

By (O)CT(O)PUS


"Innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)" has been a core principle of our criminal justice system taught to generations of school children since the beginning of the Republic. Yet today, not enough people focus on the words in parenthesis, as demonstrated by this comment:
"There is nothing wrong with racial profiling (…) Our brains tell us what to think by gathering past experiences and condensing them down to create "profiles" of how we expect things to be (…) There is nothing wrong with this - and the ability to draw quick conclusions helps us in many aspects of our lives" (Timestamp: Dec 2, 2014 at 4:44 PM). 
Wrong on all counts! 'Innocent' does NOT mean ‘guilty’ by reason of racial profiling or crime statistics. Negative stereotypes perpetuate discrimination by restricting the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of people. In the public sector, racial profiling is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the Fourteenth Amendment, which confers equal protection under law to all peoples in all jurisdictions. Furthermore, racial profiling violates another principle of law: Reasonable Search and Seizure. It does NOT mean stopping any citizen at random on the basis of skin color and/or ethnic identity alone without ‘reasonable cause.’

Within my circle of friends - and a member of this forum - is a LAWYER who works as a legislative analyst for the North Carolina State Legislature. Despite her education and accomplishments, my friend cannot shop in upscale department stores without being shadowed by store security. Why? Because my friend is racially profiled. How utterly offensive and galling to be stopped every time you shop! Reactionary rightwing hacks justify racial profiling on the basis of crime statistics; this is the same mindset that deprives my friend of simple freedoms - taken for granted by the rest of us.

I recall this experience from my childhood: On afternoons after the religious schools of churches in my community let out, I was chased home by bullies who tormented and menaced me with this remark: “You killed our Lord.” What? Who? Me? What are you talking about! These recollections from childhood – and the fear felt by an 8-year old kid – explain my empathy for all people who are gratuitously profiled, targeted, and victimized on the basis of ethnic, racial, or religious intolerance. Racial profiling is a violation of human rights that has led to deadly consequences:
This story dominated news headlines for over a year: Ignoring the instructions of a 9-1-1 dispatcher to wait for law enforcement to arrive, a self-appointed neighborhood vigilante stalked and killed an unarmed teenager. 
In Cleveland, Ohio, a rookie patrolman shot and killed a 12-year old boy who was reportedly brandishing a toy gun in a public park. The 9-1-1 dispatcher failed to inform responding officers that the suspect was “probably a kid” and the gun was “probably fake.” 
NYPD officers savagely beat and sodomized a Haitian security guard with a broomstick handle. What provoked this outrage? The suspect reached for his wallet to show his ID. 
In Oakland, California, a BART transit officer shot a suspect in the back. The patrol officer claimed he had mistakenly reached for his revolver instead of a stun gun: One more dead boy!
'Innocent' does NOT mean ‘guilty’ by means of street justice where rookies and adrenaline-addled hotheads act in haste as judge, jury and executioner in a flash of gunfire. All too often, miscues have resulted in death. In a court of law, none of the alleged offenses would merit a death sentence. Yet, death is meted out instantaneously on the street for offenses that are normally considered minor. In practice, the default reaction is: “Shoot first, ask questions later.” Instead, the default reaction should be: "Use non-lethal means" whenever possible.

'Innocent' does NOT mean ‘guilty’ in the kangaroo court of media and public opinion. Yet, all too often, cable networks violate the meaning of “fair and balanced” as sensationalized news reports sink to the level of mob incitement. People believe incendiary journalism is motivated by partisanship. I offer a contrary view: The Gilded Age of Yellow Journalism lives and thrives in the Era of Cable News. Broadcast television is where indifference to truth and justice merges into the fast lane of free enterprise and crass commercial self-interest; where Nielson ratings, audience share, and advertising dollars take precedence over journalistic integrity and civic responsibility; where profits always trump principle.

'Innocent' does NOT mean ‘guilty’ in a court of polarizing polemics by hacks of every persuasion. The long simmering resentments of people - harassed by racial profiling - cannot be assuaged with a simple appeal: "We need to have an honest and forthright conversation about race."  We’ve had conversations about race since the beginning of the Republic - with less than universal results.  Today, we have a biracial President whose education and accomplishments should end all talk of racial profiling. Yet, we have a reactionary fringe that defames, discredits, and vilifies the President at every turn and nullifies every initiative with cheap shot tactics and theatrics. There will never be equality and justice under law for anyone unless there are full human rights for everyone.  Instead of a national conversation, we need reforms - not this national impasse driven by an old cliché:

Don’t just stand there!
Do nothing!
(But make sure you scream into the camera!)

14 comments:

  1. I wonder if anyone who has ever been in a fight would fail to be a little cynical about restraint. It goes against half a billion years of evolution. That's why you never keep your finger on the trigger - you're certain to pull it without knowing as things heat up. I'm afraid to carry one for that reason. Emotion makes us stupid -- all of us.

    Even in a controlled environment like a martial arts class, one stops pulling one's punches sometimes. Bones get broken, maybe your best friend's, maybe your's. It's happened to me and I was so adrenalized it didn't hurt for hours.

    This cop used too much force wrestling a man the size of two men. He must have been pumping out adrenaline like a fire hose. I'm willing to entertain the idea that it was as much about bad and inadequate training as part of some race based hatred.

    I'm certainly not denying there's a racism problem, but I think we need to be sure we don't automatically accept or reject information by "profiling" cops or prosecutors or judges either. Innocent until proved otherwise and facebook accounts, songs or signs or things people just know aren't proof.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The is one statistic that should have been included in the above post: Kids in predominantly black communities are 21 times more likely to be killed than kids in white communities - more than 10 times the underlying crime rate in those neighborhoods. Whatever causes - or motives - account for these numbers is beyond reason.

    The adrenaline-while-on-duty excuse does not work for me. The citizens of any community deserve to have a trained and professional police force - not some army of occupation that treats every citizen as a would-be insurgent or terrorist. This is America, not a war zone, and these kids are our kids.

    To draw a weapon and kill a person in an instant (before determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect, or whether or not a suspect is armed or unarmed) - this is current standard operating procedure. What we have is a culture of shoot first without accountability. What we SHOULD have is a police force trained to use non-lethal means as the default choice BEFORE firing a weapon. Examples:

    In Ferguson, MO, Officer Wilson called for backup; he erred in not waiting for backup to arrive before confronting a large and surly kid. If Wilson had waited, the Brown kid would still be alive – in a juvenile detention center.

    In Cleveland, OH, the responding officer should have exercised restraint to assess the situation FIRST before killing a 12-year old kid without forethought.

    In Sanford, FL, the self-appointed village vigilante should have followed the instructions of a 911 dispatcher and waited for police to arrive. Had George Zimmerman restrained himself, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

    Yesterday, a staircase incident in New York made headlines. A patrolman mistakenly shot an innocent man in a darkened hallway. Instead of calling for an ambulance, the officer called his union representative. The victim died.

    And you wonder why citizens are outraged! Need I continue, or will these examples suffice?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's the same the whole world over, It's the poor what gets the blame, It's the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it a blooming shame?

    Yes, people in certain areas are subject to more crime. Those are always poor areas. Adults are too. Kids are an unneeded emotional trigger, I'd prefer to talk about people and civil rights if I may. Some places to live are better than others and some of the reasons involve crime and criminals and where you find those, you're going to find more police and possibly less competent police as the basketball star said. What do we conclude? Possibly just what we want to.

    The causes of of poverty and urban decay and gang violence and addiction and lack of opportunity and dearth of grocery stories -- fear and bad schools and little health care as all these things relate to ethnicity? -- we need to talk, but we need to be objective and honest and brave. Here there be lots of sacred cows and a shipload of shibboleths. You're gonna get accusations all over ya if you suggest restraint and that this or that theory is inadequate.

    So sure, restraint, forbearance, keep your weapons holstered and keep calm. All good advice, all easier to say than to do particularly when your life is in danger and don't forget the Jerry Springer rule - people always think they make sense the more they don't..I don't think it makes sense to say that the cop in Ferguson had the option to be patient. The other cases? Those are other cases and aren't cases like snowflakes?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I only know for certain the following;

    I am glad I ultimately decided against law enforcement when I was 21.

    I appreciate and respect all the good cops, which make up the majority, that put their lives on the line daily.

    Were I an officer in a threatening situation where the life of someone in the community or my own was potentially in danger I know what my priority would be. It certainly wiuld not be overt concern for the perpetrator criminal.

    There is no denying there are bad cops and a small percentage are indeed racist. Institutionalized prejudice needs to be eradicated yes. How exactly to accomplish this is the million dollar question. Education and time I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I'm a little short of funds to buy that million dollar answer so I won't be chanting "when do we want it - NOW!" like the two year olds in the street. I'm sure it wouldn't be simple and quick and final though. Some guy, I forget who, once said the poor will always be with us. I'll bet that's true of all sorts of unfortunate things like the stupid and the crooked and the self righteous, but education and time, I agree.

      Meanwhile all kinds of momentous, stupendous, colossal and horrifying things are going on in the world and we're too busy telling everyone how angry we are.

      We keep hearing about how our military are heroes fighting for our freedom, but in fact the cops sometimes have more to do with our actual freedom. We also don't smear all of them when the 1% bastards commit some atrocity. Just sayin'

      Delete
  5. Ah but it has been a war zone since we declared the War on Crime and the War on Drugs and the War on 'terror' and passed the Patriot act that suspends the probable cause guarantee of the 4th amendment. We've been enthusiastic supporters of it all along because we're taught to be very afraid.
    Dogs rage. We have better options, but one thing we've never been willing to do is to spend a thousandth as much for police as we do to blow up other countries for no good reason. I have to insist that when you're afraid you don't make good decisions and in proportion to the level of fear. It's how we're constructed and although sufficient training allows us to ignore instinct, sufficient training is expensive and needs to be repeated. Blame the cop or blame a community that has no money or has money and won't spend it or will spend it to keep "them" at bay no matter how it's done? Does that train of blame have a terminus too close to home?

    As several wise people have said recently: lets talk about making progress in civil rights for everyone and stop calling each other names and telling each other how angry we are and acting out in the street where it does no good whatever.. It's called restraint. Maybe we should show some restraint in blocking traffic in Chicago and confront Congress instead. Some poor bastard trying to get home isn't going to be interested in your outrage and outrage doesn't justify anything.

    I'm wondering too why we Liberals won't shed a damned tear for people who get robbed by unarmed children who lose their businesses and jobs and lives because people are "outraged." Hey, are we basing our sympathy and tolerance on skin color? Nah. Are we biased in favor of criminals and against hard working minorities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Are we biased in favor of criminals …?”

      Having been a crime victim myself once upon a time, I would hardly consider myself biased in favor of criminals. An incident occurred in the 1980s while I was living in London - mugged and slashed by three of Fagin’s gang. It is NOT my intention here to gratuitously stereotype all patrol officers as bullies with a badge (although we know of some rookies, i.e. those from tough hardscrabble neighborhoods, who abuse the authority of the badge and assert more power than allowed by law).

      England has class – not caste in shades of black or brown or yellow – but a certain class that rolls off the tongue and reveals your status in life. My assailants spoke cockney.

      In 1980s London, all chatter was about the ‘Big Bang’ - a term that referred to the deregulation of London’s financial markets. In the 1980s, the colossus of Thatcher and the colossus of Reagan strode both sides of the Atlantic promising newfound riches in the unleashed market forces of capitalism - unfettered by regulations and pesky labor unions.

      Ironically speaking, Thatcherism did liberate the cockney class, whose aggressive street-smart style of business appealed to the purveyors of Big Bang. Suddenly, the offspring of street hawkers from London’s East End found lucrative 6-figure jobs in banks and brokerage houses. You know you have come up in the world when your culture of street crime mainstreams into white-collar crime.

      Consider it a mugging, either way.

      Delete
    2. I only brought up some sympathy for the people in crime ridden neighborhoods rhetorically and to point out that those who jump on the media bandwagon are being used and manipulated and deprived of perspective. They're being handed biased and slanted opinions and selected facts. They're led to believe negative things according to their prejudices and the voices of reason and wisdom and personal experience are drowned out. We haven't heard much about the effect of crime and lack of enforcement in a community. And of course there isn't a hint of a whisper about numbers and trends that might allow us some objectivity. I did some looking up and it wasn't easy, but it seems to be that shootings by police have been relatively steady for a long time, while the shooting of police is increasing. So much for investigative reporting versus rage mongering.

      The hotheads act out and occupy the cops so that the criminals can get away with looting and burning and guess who the media portray as "typical?" Guess who the bigots portray as "typical?" Guess which citizens of Ferguson will find another place to live leaving a bigger waste land behind and which people will panic seeing "those people" moving in. Who is helping, who is making it worse and feeling righteous about it? Necessary, but difficult to talk about without accusations flying around.

      One of the things that contribute toward a downward spiral of a neighborhood or town is the flight of businesses which take opportunity and sustenance and revenue away. Can a dying area afford to hire and train the really good cops a "tough" neighborhood needs? And of course, there's the complaint that police ignore neighborhoods and don't respond to calls for help.

      I agree with RN that this may not be the best time to be a cop.

      Delete
    3. … this may not be the best time to be a cop …

      My problem with this controversy, and my problem with partisan discourse in general, is the inherent tone-deafness of talking points. When one proffers a viewpoint, the tendency is to counter one talking point with another to preempt the first and make the second predominant. Are all controversies populated with mutually exclusive talking points? Hardly! Sometimes there are valid points on two or more sides of an argument, and the logical operator should be “and instead or “or” or “nor.” When we regard our pet viewpoints as binary and mutually exclusive, the result is impasse and an end to discourse.

      A: Historically, this is true: Riots and looting and arson have caused businesses to flee impoverished communities – leading to further declines in quality of life. However, when we focus exclusively on acts or self-sabotage, we miss the desperations that fuel the moment …

      B: Historically, this is also true: Poverty, racial profiling, inequality, and powerlessness – conspiring with incidents of harassment, excessive force or outright brutality by law enforcement – are lethal combinations that lead to explosive resentment.

      To focus exclusively on talking point ‘A’ to the exclusion of talking point ‘B’ is to miss a point … and compound an injustice. Yet, there are people cannot hold two or more talking points in their heads simultaneously. Some folks will invent new talking points based on false attributions – such as blaming the president for every leaf that falls from a tree. Partisanship feeds on intellectual dishonesty and keeps us polarized.

      This may not be the best time to be a cop. It is certainly the worst of times to be a rational and fair-minded person. From a historical perspective, perhaps W. B. Yeats expressed it best in simple terms:

      Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
      A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot,
      Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
      The beggars have changed places but the lash goes on
      .

      Delete
    4. Doncha just love Yeats?

      It may not be the best time for anything, but it's certainly not the worst, nor is this the worst place in this horrible, dangerous and Hobbsian world. Is it me, but do I detect scorn from liberal partisans for wanting to see things as part of a universe in which everything effects everything else instead of reiterating what everyone knows, whether they admit it or not? Our country, by virtue of human nature, has a strong tendency toward an increasing inequality of circumstance, opportunity power, and justice. It affects us all in different ways and to different degrees. Everything is interconnected and co-dependent and interdependently caused. Nothing is simple, every flutter of the butterfly's wing affects everything, yet the goal of partisans is always to simplify, to distract, to edit and redact information and drown out controversy with noise and threats. We want justice NOW, but as to how to get it, you'll have to trust me kids. How long did it take to get from the suffering of the Russian peasants to Lenins murders and Stalin's purges?

      If you're saying that's where we go wrong I agree. Instead of asking ourselves if the forensic evidence of powder burns on Michael Brown's hands and ballistic analysis, etc weakens the case for him being innocent or validates the policeman's testimony, we get ad hominem on the prosecutor and accuse people of being racist. It's the cause that matters and the leaders that matter the most. Ask a troublesome question? We steer it back to community anger. If we ask if a goal is being served by our actions and question history for an answer, we make it about white obliviousness and accuse people of all sorts of things because partisanship is about never being wrong, never admitting error, never questioning belief or action and rewarding for zealotry over all. It doesn't matter whether you're a liberal or not. It never mattered whether Trotsky was a Communist or not.

      Rational and fair minded? Shhhhhhhh! someone will hear you.

      Yes, I submit and admit that there are rogue police departments, prosecutors and judges and always have been. It's been worse, Vide Supra but please let's insist that evidence be the determining factor, lest the lash go on. And no, I don't consider that considering actions with respect to effectiveness is a talking point, but simply rational, if the end is to make things better and not simply to act out.

      Delete
  6. Shouldn't we "rage against the dying of the light"? And not "go softly into that dark night". Just sayin....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh, yes! To rage or to go softly … I recall discussing those lines in English class many years ago and wondered why anyone would choose ‘rage’ as sage advice when giving comfort to a dying parent. Sooner or later, all of us – after we have buried our parents – come to this realization: We are next in queue. Infirmity, dementia, disability, and the broken down machinery of an aging body … only a poet and stumble down drunk might find virtue in ‘rage’ at the terminus of death. Yet, there are many people who admire this poem of Dylan Thomas. Just because we may admire his poetry, does this mean we should admire the thoughts inside those poems? Here is another perspective:

      The deleted stanzas from
      In Memory of W. B. Yeats
      by W. H. Auden

      Time that is intolerant
      Of the brave and the innocent,
      And indifferent in a week
      To a beautiful physique,

      Worships language and forgives
      Everyone by whom it lives;
      Pardons cowardice, conceit,
      Lays its honours at their feet.

      Time that with this strange excuse
      Pardoned Kipling and his views,
      And will pardon Paul Claudel,
      Pardons him for writing well.

      In other words, we may admire the language of poetry, but admiration does not obligate us to embrace the ideas of the poet. The same comment applies to Ezra Pound and T. S. Idiot.

      Delete
    2. Do not go Gentile into that good night
      Take down the tree before it's Christmas day
      Convert, Convert and candles light.

      Delete
  7. Hm, all good point. Lets play a word substitution exercise in which truth (or good) is substituted for light and dishonesty is substituted for dark night.

    Again, just sayin. ..

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.