Mike Ramirez et al, I must respond to some of the points you have raised. As far as I am aware, the proceedings of the Grand Jury are private, so that witnesses can speak freely without fear of retaliation, and all that is announced is the verdict.The Grand Jury was under a lawful obligation to reach a verdict based on the evidence available for debate, and with the benefit of the judges directions it reached its verdict (which was not to indict Darren Wilson). It is not appropriate for observers not privy to the proceedings to say that the Grand Jury in St Louis County, Missouri was wrong or corrupt or even right. Of course, I am not naïve to think that due process is purely impartial, however it is still an invaluable asset.Those who say Wilsons acquittal is a direct result of racism, corruption, or incompetence, must enable themselves and others to consider such claims objectively otherwise I must urge caution on inferring such conclusions. I think those who commented on Mike Ramirezs post making these claims (including Mike himself) have failed to do that, in spite of them citing of blogs, news articles and even an interesting study on colourism. Also, I do urge people to think about the significance of violating a lawful jury without evidence in support of the accusations of racism, corruption, or incompetence. Without juries the legal system, and accordingly society, would be found seriously lacking. Every one ought to have equal opportunity to be proven guilty. I repeat: every one ought to have equal opportunity to be proven guilty. All civilised legal systems enshrine the presumption of innocence. In the EU, it is enshrined in the ECHR: Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law [Article 6(2)]. The USAs Supreme Court also enshrines this right by way of precedent, holding that the presumption of innocence lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law [Coffin v United States (1895) 156 (US) 432]. I am saddened that so many of you are quick to forget this privilege. The presumption of innocence is an inalienable right, a right integral to the legitimacy of any legal system such that if it was lacking that legitimacy would be lost. It is frustrating to see that that trial by jury and rule of law are shouted down in favour of trial by media. The apparent willingness of enormous numbers of people to dismiss the verdicts of lawful juries is as much of a source of dismay as the death of Michael Brown that catalyse that process itself. Unless you had been present at the event or at the proceedings of the Grand Jury; none of you had heard all of the evidence, and none of you had heard the judges summing up, and none of you had debated that evidence with the benefit of the judges directions. This is a call for rationality. Please, we all ought to keep our minds open but not so much that our brains fall out!
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:09:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015