The events in Ferguson during the past week regarding the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson are a perfect example of the best and worst manifestations of government by the people. On the one hand there was the grand jury, made up of 12 citizens appointed by law, considering nearly 4,500 pages of witness testimony over three months and following a due process of law.
On the other hand, was the mob of rioters that took to the streets upon learning their collective will had not been carried out by the justice system. There were, of course, those protestors who desired peace. But looting, violence, and destruction of property quickly became the defining element of the demonstrations.
Good government requires that the reason of the people rule their passions. That is why it is necessary that the will of the people be focused through a known and fair system of law. Grand juries are part of that tradition. They may either choose to indict on reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred or they may not indict. In the case at hand, the 12 jurors, nine white and three black, decided unanimously that the physical evidence and the weight of the eye witness testimony removed reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson acted in any way other than self-defense.
It is obvious that no human judgment can possibly know every single detail, but that is not enough of a claim to demand even an indictment. Yet, the decision by the grand jury has come under intense and unfair criticism. By and large, these accusations seem incredibly tenuous if not flat out wrong. Instead of presenting evidence these critics offer up narratives of racism, pro-cop bias, and “power structures.”
There is no evidence that Wilson is a racist or that he would have acted any differently had Brown been white. This isn’t Alabama circa 1965. Accusations of profound police bias without evidence undermine civil society without just cause and that should seriously concern anyone who cares about the maintenance of good government. If our system of law is so racist that even 50 years after the end of segregation white officers cannot treat blacks with basic fairness how can elected and consensual government exist at all? For many of the critics of the grand jury’s decision, it can’t.
It doesn’t matter how many cases grand juries normally return with indictments. All that matters is answering whether it was just for them to have returned one in the case at hand. To criticize their decision without firm evidence showing real and true injustice is egregious. The rule of law matters and we should be slow to attack it, especially when the circumstances are complex.
Police should not abuse their power, of course. But police, as agents of the law and as human beings, have a right to defend themselves from severe attack. There is no firm reasonable evidence that Wilson violated this standard. The evidence simply isn’t there.
The idea that this case is an instance of the police state versus the people is equally foolish. I have yet to see anyone criticize the fact that the Department of Justice has interfered thoroughly and consistently with the police response and investigation conducted by Ferguson and the state of Missouri. The DOJ opened civil rights investigations into Wilson’s actions and the Ferguson Police Department almost immediately after the shooting. Why? It certainly had nothing to do with actual collected evidence. The decision to investigate at the federal level was political, motivated entirely by the race of the subjects involved.
The DOJ’s actions have strongly implied the local Ferguson government cannot be trusted to do justice. Those implied accusations of misconduct have fed the flames of protest. What justification is there for this kind of federal interference in local and state action? Where in the 14th amendment’s original understanding can there be any rationalization for the federal government to open a concurrent investigation without any evidence that the state has proceeded improperly? If you are worried about the police state, let’s start by criticizing the blatantly unjust intrusion of federal power into local police jurisdiction, instead of attacking the democratic system of due process represented by the grand jury’s decision not to indict.
There is a grave danger in undermining crucial public institutions, like the court system, without hard evidence of impropriety. Conservative, libertarian, and liberal critics of the decision in the Brown case have consistently ignored serious problems, such as the federal government’s extensive involvement in Ferguson, in order to perpetuate narratives that do nothing other than attack the rule of law unfairly and imprudently. The consequences of such an unfounded loss of faith in the justice system is already apparent in the burning wreckage of downtown Ferguson. If you are in search of a better world, you will not find it there.
