Accept the Ferguson verdict

Home Opinion Accept the Ferguson verdict

A grand jury investigating the death of Michael Brown did something quite rare: It failed to return a bill of indictment. Ferguson, MO, has seen violent protests since Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown in early August. The prosecutor presented evidence to the grand jury, which announced last week that there was not enough evidence to indict Wilson. Brown’s death highlighted several problems in our criminal justice system.

It is inarguable that the police generally are too quick to exercise deadly force. There are many tragic stories about people — even children — being killed by the police. This problem is exacerbated as the police force becomes more militarized. Brown’s unfortunate death highlights these troubling trends in the criminal justice system and I hope that this spurs reform. But the response to the grand jury’s decision is unjustified.

Allegations that the grand jury’s decision reflects deep-rooted racist tendencies in the criminal justice system are likewise unfounded. The decision whether to indict Wilson was not made by the prosecutor or by any other public official: It was made by 12 of Brown’s peers. The grand jury, a racially diverse group, decided there was not sufficient evidence to take Wilson to trial. Although this obviously does not preclude the possibility of race being a factor in the grand jury’s decision, it is hard to defend the position that the decision was the product of an institution marginalizing minorities. Whatever one believes about the integrity of the Ferguson Police Department, there is little evidence to support the assertion that the grand jury itself harbored racist or pro-police tendencies.

Despite the unorthodox nature of the grand jury investigation, its decision seems defensible. Critics of the decision point out that the grand jury investigation was arguably flawed in several respects. The volume of the evidence it considered was one of the unique factors about this investigation. Typically, prosecutors only present evidence that is favorable to indictment during the grand jury process. In this case, however, the prosecutor made an effort to present all relevant evidence. Although I concede that this decision was an aberration from the standard procedure, it did not obstruct justice. What is the harm of the jury considering all relevant evidence instead of only the cherry-picked? It is not reasonable to argue that the prosecutor has an obligation to present evidence selectively. He is given discretion to proceed with the grand jury investigation in the way that he sees is best. In this case, it seems prudent to consider all relevant evidence instead of only presenting favorable evidence given the sensitive nature of Brown’s death. If the grand jury could not, while considering the relevant evidence, find sufficient reason to indict Wilson, then it seems incredibly unlikely that prosecutors could convince an entire jury when facing a higher burden of proof.

Ultimately, despite the flaws in the grand jury investigation, the grand jury made the decision, not the prosecutor. It found insufficient evidence that Wilson had committed a crime. I find this decision reasonable, and, even if I did not, the proper response is not to start burning down businesses and shooting people. The response to the grand jury’s decision is simply inappropriate. Those who support the response demonstrate their disregard for the rule of law and their lack of concern for the wellbeing of others.

Should we be concerned about Ferguson? Yes. Brown’s death reveals some of the flaws in our criminal justice system. I hope that Ferguson will raise awareness of those flaws and serve as a springboard for reform. At the same time, the violent response to the reasonable decision reached by Brown’s peers is simply unwarranted.