Submitted by Caleb Pilgrim
It is not sheer serendipity that former President George W. Bush deemed the decision by the Staten Island grand jury not to indict the white Police Officers responsible for chokehold and death of Eric Garner, as “hard to understand”. Nor that Hillary Clinton, a possible 2016 US Presidential candidate, should have considered the US justice system “out of balance”, and backed federal probes into both the Ferguson and the Staten Island cases. What is clear is the fact that the US grand jury system, under the guidance of experienced prosecutors, has failed miserably to ensure that the rights of victims minorities are legally protected.
Several decades ago, while a graduate student in the UK, I attended a lecture by the late Lord Hailsham, (UK Lord Chancellor). Hailsham, a man of extraordinary political, judicial, legal, parliamentary, and even military experience, described the American legal system as “that great museum of discarded English legal forms” … (page 38 of Hamlyn Revisited: The British Legal System Today).
Fair to say, Hailsham was critical of the civil jury system. Like Prime Minister Winston Churchill, he was born to an American mother. He was not, however, simply asserting a strident anti-American bias, and seeking to torpedo the typical claims of “American exceptionalism”. Rather, he was offering a typically robust analysis of twentieth century UK and comparative legal development.
To illustrate Hailsham’s point as to the US being “that great museum of discarded English legal forms”, the grand jury ceased to function in England in 1933, following enactment of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933… (“An Act to abolish grand juries and amend the law as to the presentment of indictments …”). Grand juries were subsequently abolished in their entirety in 1948, when the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (“An Act to abolish penal servitude, hard labour … the sentence of whipping …”),repealed a savings clause in the 1933 UK legislation retaining grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad.
Today, the United States remains the only country which still retains the grand jury system. No other western country, with a common law tradition, e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, retains the grand jury. Recent grand jury nullifications in Eric Garner’s case in Staten Island, New York, and in Michael Brown’s case in Ferguson, Missouri, must therefore concern any thoughtful, civic minded individual. Relatively widespread, popular dissatisfaction among blacks, whites, minorities, males, females, young, old, students, activists, and across the political spectrum – resulting and culminating in occasional rioting and looting – following the grand jury failure to indict police officer(s), who either intentionally or recklessly kill unarmed civilians – also compels us to consider the usefulness of the current grand jury system(s), and ask whether the time for its abolition has not come.
The refusal of the respective grand juries to return any sort of indictment may well be, in itself, a most astounding, if not compelling indictment of the system. Time was when we were told that “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”. Perhaps, yes! But, not so, where the victim is black. Black lives clearly do not matter in the context of the grand jury. (Curious, also, that the civilian who shot the infamous police assault and murder of Eric Garner should allegedly have recently been indicted by a grand jury in a different matter).
We are yet to see what the Cuyahoga County/Cleveland, Ohio, grand jury will do in the case of the murder of 12 year old Tamir Rice by mis-advised, trigger happy white Cleveland police – Tamir was shot 2 seconds after Police Officer Timothy Loehman arrived on the scene. Loehman, barring a particular species of informal affirmative action, and the aristocracy of skin color may rightfully have been considered otherwise unemployable, based on his previous job performance and his employment record.
Indeed, it is the case that the murder of unarmed black males by the police is nothing new. We are, nevertheless, yet to see any sort of comprehensive statistical data setting out the actual numbers of black men either killed by police, nationally, or how many exactly are the victims of excessive use of force by law enforcement. The WSJ even recently reported that hundreds of killings are not reported in federal statistics.
We do not yet know the actual costs of empanelling the grand juries in Ferguson, including the resulting fall-out, and the Staten Island grand jury. What we do know is that the enormous social, economic and financial costs were quite foreseeable.
Most prosecutors are experienced trial lawyers. They are quite capable of indicting any offender, picking up the pieces and bringing the matter to either settlement or speedy trial. They indict every day throughout this country, without any need for a grand jury. They try cases every day.
It is therefore clear that the grand jury, based on Staten Island and Ferguson outcomes, except where intended to give the prosecutor a measure of political cover, has proven itself a useless sham and an anachronism, which ought to be abolished forthwith. Its mandatory secrecy also militates against transparency, accountability and the Rule of Law in a democracy. How does one reconcile the mandatory secrecy of grand jury proceedings with the need for transparency and accountability? (Belated, ex-post facto release of transcripts- after the grand jury’s decision – is but sheer bogus). Why do we need another layer in a now clearly flawed system of grand jury “prosecutorial discretion”?
The presence of minorities on these grand juries does not even offer a fig leaf of protection to the rights of victims deceased at the hands of the police officers who murdered them. It used to be axiomatic that “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”! Based on widespread dissent, not even the most myopic could reasonably, far less unequivocally conclude that justice was either done or “seen to be done” in either Ferguson or Staten Island. Pray tell, how does today’s grand jury help conserve what is best in contemporary American society, beset with a multitude of complex issues.
It should suffice that where probable cause exists, any rogue police officer, and any defendant(s) – e.g. Officers Wilson and Pantaleo, like anyone else, should at a minimum have been charged with murder and tried by criminal jury, without the intervention of a renegade grand jury, in a squalid and unseemly manipulation of the legal system.
159 responses to “Why Not Abolish the Grand Jury?”
cannot agree that the grand jury system has failed miserably in the USA…..statics weighed heavily in favour of numerous indictments many of which included citizens of notoriety ,,,,, what is undeniable and with good questioning is the process of having the police police themselves where the evedience collected and presented by the prosecutor seems to have been tampered and shifted with a bias of favoring or leaning towards a no guilt or reasonable doubt to indict the police, and which when presented to the jury falls under the law of reasonable doubt,
Now perhaps, I am ignorant to ask the question regarding the abolition of the Grand Jury because of my lack of a comprehensive understanding of American jurisprudence?
But is there any validate basis for wanting to abolished the Grand Jury when is gives the citizenry the latitude to determining whether or not there is any culpability regarding a charge the police presences, before bring the actual indictment? The Grand Jury proceeding is a Five Amendment Right which gives the citizenry body the opportunity to weight the possible evidence before formal charges are brought. So I would question secrecy of the process and the composition of the citizenry body on the Grand Jury, which determine whether or not there is enough evidence to file formal charges again the accused.
AC
We obviously agree that the grand Jury system in America has failed miserably, but why take away that right from the citizenry body and give it to some state entity?
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects against unfair treatment in legal processes.
The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. The (grand jury) is a pre-constitutional common law institution and a constitutional fixture in its own right exclusively embracing common law. The process applies to the states to the extent that the states have incorporated grand juries and/or common law. Most states have an alternative civil process. “Although state systems of criminal procedure differ greatly among themselves, the grand jury is similarly guaranteed by many state constitutions and plays an important role in fair and effective law enforcement in the overwhelming [p688] majority of the States.” Branzburg v. Hayes (No. 70-85) 1972. The Amendment also provides several trial protections, including the right against self-incrimination (held to also apply to custodial interrogations and before most government bodies) as well as the right to be tried only once (“double jeopardy”) in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken
Now Caleb….you are sufficiently the common lawyer to know that the repeated reference to the “murder’ of black suspects is pure tosh, window dressing. You know very well it is “the killing of” or ‘the homicide of”.
You say “where probable cause exists” a man should be charged with murder. But isn’t that manipulation too since it is the Grand Jury which must determine “probable cause” – whatever that is precisely? In any event, the grand jury’s decision may well be safer than the whim of one man. Isn’t the reality that whatever happens in a racially charged situation it’s ‘no win, no win’ – and that WHATEVER the evidence only a conviction will satisfy?
Two days, was it, after the Ferguson decision, a young black boy was murdered and burned in his car close to the spot where Michael Brown was killed. A grand jury witness? And what happens to potential witnesses in an open court room? After all, you’ve already concluded that every killing of a black man by a police officer is ‘murder’. So what hope for justice?
Like everyone else I have feelings, concerns about Garner – initially to the point of shock and horror. For reasons I’d be glad to explain I would have marched – and would if we marched here. But something is bugging me and perhaps you’d be kind enough to help.
Was there just one video recorded by the runty white fella or several videos from different people?
Nice to see ya.
domey please re read my comments,, to clarify i do not agree that the grand jury system has failed overall however there are instances like the ones we have seen recently that gives enough reason to rethink by not cast aside,
Ross
The Garner’s case obviously raises a serious question as to whether or not excessed force was employed by the police officers who apprehended him. You heard Mr. Garner said on the video footage that he could not breathe several times and yet the one officer refused released the man’s throat. So do you think that the officer who held Mr. Garner around the throat should have been indicted on involuntary manslaughter? Now given the emotional charge of the incident, we all can agree that the office wasn’t full aware of Mr. Garner’s cries? (Which I find impossible to believe)But that doesn’t in any meaningful way changes that fact that a man life was taken and it ought not to have happened. And as Mr. Garner’s wife said quite recently on CNN: She know of many people who have resisted arrest but their still living.”
It is not surprising how comments above have not attempted to engage the writer on the premise to abolish the grand jury. There is consensus, and it is mentioned in the article, the grand jury system continues to be manipulated by experienced prosecutors. This becomes more apparent when cases against the police involving minorities come up. Comprehension is a wonderful thing. Ignorance is a curse.
Ross
Was there just one video recording by the runty white fella or several videos from different people? I am quite sure the same question was asked in the Rodney King beating?
For what it’s worth…
This is an excellent review of the Grand Jury system and alternatives:
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/hnygjw.htm
The author summaries ; paraphrased as:…alternatives to grand jury, could be a preliminary hearing or prosecutor being fully responsible to bring the indictment.
Options , btw, which are used in other jurisdictions.
He offers also : An alternative to that plan would be to replace the grand jurors entirely with an independent magistrate. The proceeding might be described as either an ex parte preliminary hearing which is closed to the general public or a one person grand jury.
Realistically, the main problem with the grand jury is with matters involving police officers.
To alleviate the burden on the DA and his staff of indicting the folks (conflict of interest) with whom they have to work daily, an independent process is required.
That could be a special prosecutor for those cases always, or a variant of the special prosecutor like the alternative mentioned by the author above where a judge/magistrate sits as a single grand juror or 3 such judge/magistrates.
The grand jury system itself is not necessarily bad it’s just anachronistic because society can now better respond to the concerns which gave birth to it and more importantly over the years it has been used by the local legal authorities on police involved matters in exactly the way it was created to prevent.
Dont Shoot
I Can’t Breathe (We Can’t Breathe)
Black Lives Matter
Want Justice?
Protest
Die Ins
Take the streets
Stop Traffic
Shut down Xmas Business
US Worst Nightmare is ten of thousands blacks protesting in streets
complete with white back up and support
media and politicians will take note eventually
http://youtu.be/Fa-J_mbS2Kg
There are so much rules and regulations
there are so many Judges judging the nation
but no justice for the poor man
only justice for the rich man
partiality is their philosophy
money is their only goal
that’s why the feeling of love
is drifting away
money revolves more than human heads
that’s why no love can be found
I ain’t building no strife
only speaking my mind
Rasta wants Justice Justice
The Poor man wants Justice Justice
The Rodney king beating was that the one before the Reginald denny beating?
The other thing I wold say on this matter is that a grand jury can’t be blamed for following the law…
Accepting the point that the DA/Prosecutor can manipulate the situation with the evidence or statues of possible charges presented, the simply fact is that the burden for a police officer’s excessive force is very high.
Take the Garner case and ‘I can’t breathe’ said 14 times. How many times has a PO heard: ‘oh Laud, u brekking ma hand’, or similar when in the tussle with a perp?
How many times has a PO eased up after such remarks and regretted it.
The answer there is surely, either zero or one.
So when that type of evidence is presented it’s going to require very strong mitigating circumstances to get a conviction against a cop.
I thought Garner’s situation fell under that standard but the jurors and the DA felt not.
Again i reiterate the Grand jury system has served the american justice well over the years where all and sundry ,,rich and poor notable and paultry have been indicted under the system with clear and concise irrefutable evedience,,
However in the cases of police force or brutality the evedience becomes blurred and less plausible especially when vivid evedience sen by a viewing public shows clear and convicting proof which is then overturned with contradictions and subliminal subliminal simulation to coverup to confuse and divert to the average citizens many of which make up the gran jury
The writers point of view although plausible could be jumping the gun as a side effect which all seeks for the right of equality through justice for all, but as stated early statistics proof that grand juries have been more favorable towards indictments than against,
What most are witnessing is a deep rooted racism that still lingers and thrives well in a fraternity that has exercised and adopted full privileges granted (to them) by law in the justice system and this gran jury cannot be faulted for the process or the result rendered
Keeping the gran jury in place is as fair to seeking justice one can be and a replacement would not suffice if the alternative is a replacement of those dwelling within the halls of the justice system who knows how the game is played
Amazing……only in Bim……Chuckle…..this country going through the eddoes,literally an allyuh talking bout USA grand jury rubbish…..wuhloss.
@ David
At the Federal level there were 162,000 Grand Juries in a past year. All but 11 ended in indictments. In the USA it is said ‘a ham sandwich could be indicted.’ That’s why many avoid being targets of grand juries, ala Bill Clinton. All the prosecutor has to do is to present the evidence which favours an indictment. In other words, a one-sided case to a captive audience. It the lowest threshold known to man.
Hence the problem is not with the Grand Jury system per se but the willingness of prosecutors who depend for their livelihoods on the police, the collusion by medical workers and the willful ignorance of judges who play along with this farce when it suits vested interests. Meaning exempting White policemen from criminal proceedings.
More generally, the nature of policing as the enforcement arm of institutional racism continues to confront Black communities wherever we live. So from recruitment and selection to deployment in Black neighborhoods, policing has more to do with criminalizing Black people than upholding notions of protecting and serving. They are in essence protecting and serving White people from Blacks, as an understood imperative. At least in the mind of the racist system described.
So the nature of policing, meaning “Broken Windows”, Stop and Frisk are calculated to leave Black men with criminal records and unable to compete with White men for good paying jobs. Recruitment & selection is engineered to supply a dominate majority of White policemen to Black neighborhoods. They tell black women who want to join the police that they scoliosis, merely based on the curvature of their body. They make Black men angry during medical exams then measure their BP to find it high and a disqualifier for entry. This is institutional racism in the good ole US of A!
Disparities in sentencing has created the predominate modern Slavery in the prisons of the USA with up to 70% of the prison population Black or Latino. They make up only 25% of the total population. The USA has more prisoners than the next 45 countries combined. This is an indication of modern slavery, Apartheid, racism.
So it is not the Grand Jury system. It was designed, in the first place, to guarantee convictions. The real cancer in American and global society is still racism. So to focus on the grand jury could only lead to more of the same. Instead, we are to focus on institutional racism and its eradication, period!
So, neither Sharpton, nor marches, nor pleads from the President, nor Mayor, nor Congressional officials, nor new legal procedures, nor the UN will stop this any time soon. They are all ‘blowviating’.
Why do you think that policemen shoot to kill. They have determined that it is cheaper and better that having an alive but badly injured victim as a witness and a claimant for a lifetime of benefits, civil claims. And every body knows this, nurses ‘n all! Sharpton and his boys are little more than ambulance chasers. Running behind the money the system is prepared to pay to maintain itself and continue killing Black people. They have no interests in changing any of these circumstances.
@Vincent
If you scan the BU homepage what do you see?
If we receive a submission from someone who wants to express an opinion on the matter what should BU do?
If you scan the local newspapers or local TV what is your observation?
Do you accept we have followers of BU who reside overseas?
Do you believe it is possible to walk and chew gum?
@Pacha and Dee Word
Good crisp positions. The protests directed at the grand jury system suggests there is a basis to have some serious critique and perhaps this is what the author of the piece is seeking to do. Hell even GWB stated he was surprised by the Grand Jury decision.
De Word
Replacing the Grand Jury with an independent Magistrate poses a serious question because what if that magistrate is bias in his decision in some respect? What if he has a bias against blacks? I think the Grand Jury process is a much more reasonable alternative, that if the jurors reflects a wider array of the citizenry. The problem we have had in the past is majority white grand jury rending and indictment in a case involving a white victim and a black accused and vice versa. Plus many in the legal sphere have called for better transparency, for what amounts to a secret process.
“Institutional racism”
Then there is nothing much to talk about.
David
Sorry – if you want just one point of view don’t have a blog. But I agree with your remarks about relevance. As for Caleb’s piece, there is nothing wrong with it at all – save for criticism of the substance.
Dompey
I have said NOTHING about the merits of either case – yet. But yes – the issue of the video is critical. One Or MORE? You have the answer?
@ David
Thanks. Don’t pay idiots like Vincent Haynes any mind. How many times are you to publish articles dealing with local politics. Sometime we cuss FJS and MAM so much we should feel sorry for those poor bastards! LOL
Vincent Haynes is the quintessential slave. Massa could never ‘do no wrong’, for him. For him, there must be a way to blame Black people even in these circumstances. So he would not want/write to talk about this.
The bullers and their supporters, who see nothing wrong with bulling and breaking Barbados law, could ‘come out’ to find pseudo-sophisticated defenses for the continuing destruction of Black people by state agents. To them this is not terrorism. To them this modern manifestation of their beloved racism can be justified, papered over. But when these same people want support for their bulling agenda the same foolish Black people are to join their chorus. We say race first!
Where in BU’s comment we are indifferent to alternative views? Comprehension is a wonderful thing. We have the author who has offered a view about what he thinks is a flawed Grand Jury system and in response we have jackasses spouting about it is being a requirement under the constitution.
Any guesses what the decision will be in the Tamir Grand Jury?
Some of BU bloggers live in the USA and Canada. If we take the opportunity to discuss events in the places where we live please forgive us.
After all we earn a living outside Barbados and most of us share our earnings as remittances to Barbados in plenty and in time of need.
BU offers the opportunity to discuss multiple topics.Tek yuh pick.
“Comprehension is a wonderful thing”
David….don’t you think you should forget the sarcasm and LEAD – by standing back?
Or will you now criticize the sick twirp for introducing irrelevancies about ‘bulling’ – which does rather spoil his “crisp” analysis doesn’t it?
But I will say this now….the persistent jibes about white, institutional racism suggest to me a much deeper racism – and essentially renders all dispassionate discussion otiose. But then that’s nothing new on BU largely as the result of the sick twirp. See – if you point out that racism against whites exists in Barbados the over-arching answer is “It’s our turn now’. Gawd..
David
“And guess what the decision will be in….”
David – shut the F up. You are KILLING discussion.
I do agree with your piece Pachamama. I think we have to look at racism as factor in some of these recent grand jury proceedings and not the concept of the Grand Jury in of itself. If you notice in the Rodney King case, all of white officers were acquitted by an all-white jury on the state level. But it was not until when the Justice Department retried these white officers with a jury which reflected an equal balanced of the citizenry, that they were able to gained a conviction.
This submission to be read by those who are NOT JAs.
What’s the problem, David? You read it.
Here is a United Nation sponsored report that concluded African-American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than White males and 2.5 times more likely than Hispanic males…
There is a problem which underpins this issue, deal with it!
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_ICCPR%20Race%20and%20Justice%20Shadow%20Report.pdf
#FreedomDub
#Ferguson2Miami
#BlackLivesMatter
#WeCantBreathe
#BuyBlack
#ICantBreathe
#HandsUpDontShoot
#Justice
http://youtu.be/annzOcJlQmo
http://srogers.cartodb.com/viz/3ecef0b4-7cae-11e4-8bbb-0e9d821ea90d/embed_map
http://srogers.cartodb.com/viz/3ecef0b4-7cae-11e4-8bbb-0e9d821ea90d/embed_map
@ David
We are surprised that you as the convener of this discussion could be so reviled by ‘that one’. We have long deduced that ‘her’ agenda is essentially racist. ‘She’ had even tried to convince our friend BAF that it was possible for a Black man, a victim of racism, to be himself also racist.
Though ‘she’ would want to continue to use your forum to proselytize the virtues of bulling, that she is so exercised by your direction tells us that too much excrement has transcended the blood-brain barrier. That the obvious manifestations of institutional racism, not only in the USA but Barbados as well continues to this day can only be denied by the willful ignorant. This has been recently documented by the esteemed UN, in the case of Barbados. It is a report which the whole country has chosen to ignore. That is the nature of institutional racism.
In order to refute established claims, the people making such refutations must provide the evidence, not mere pleadings or hysterics.
res ipsa
David
Of course…there is one possible ‘dealing with it’….could it be that blacks commit more crimes than whites over-all and despite representing, what is the percentage, only a relatively small proportion of the total population?
But note the Report mentions the “poor’ as well as “minorities”. For all I know, and I don’t any more than you do, the distinction based on wealth or lack of it may be more meaningful than one based on race.
But we ARE a long way from the grand jury – not so? Or is it OK if YOU deflect us….and your brother, Mr Crisp?
David
We don’t have to rely on what we don’t know. Let those who, on every occasion, find a defense for racism as manifested by the police shooting of Black men, show a body of evidence where White men are shot in similar circumstances and relative numbers. We could list hundreds of other indicators of Racism. Even the tortured efforts to finds defenses of these actions, by US police and others, are in themselves racist to the core!.
Ross
I have worked in a psychiatric unit prior to my current employment, and I have had to restraint guys the size of Mr. Garner. But the team with which I worked had a plan of action to take down to some of the psychiatric patients. Our teams usually comprised of five guys and one supervisor, who were given specific instructions how to take down these patients. One guy would stabilize the head as the patients while he or she was brought to the flood; another guy the right arm and the other left arm; another guy the right foot the other the left foot. And for the five years I had worked in that unit, we hadn’t any serious injuries involving the patients or staff. And these where pretty violent patients who were on antipsychotic medication. And if you know anything about antipsychotic medication: it put serious weight on the patients who are taking them. Now, it seems as though the police officers on the video footage hadn’t any real plan of action to take down my Mr. Garner, but an unnecessary use of force?
Is it unreasonable to extrapolate from the behaviour by police in the USA which supports racial profiling that it would make its way all the way to grand jury system manipulation and deliberation? We should not assess in a vacuum.
@ David
Again you are right! One cannot understand a society if he/she sees events as ends in themselves. Everything is rightly connected to everything else and should be.
Freedom is the right to protest
#FreedomTime
#FUpPigsDaily
http://youtu.be/Dt-dOkA-Dt4
This a way to deal with Police shootings.
http://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php
David
I understand the author’s point of want to do away with the Grand Jury given these recent decisions involving the young black men. But why take a constitutional right out of the hands of the citizenry and put it in some magistrate who might possibly be bias against Blacks folks? It does not make much sense to me because if we have one black person sitting on the Grand Jury it could possibly make the world of difference in the outcome of future police shootings involving black people.
There were two separate incidences last year involving the shooting of two innocent black people by two separate white guys and each of these incidences involved a car accident. Where the two black persons where look for help and knocked on the door of these two white folks and were shot dead. One Black girl was shot in the face and a Black Football player was shot dead at the door of the white man he was seeking help from.
@Dompey…Replacing the Grand Jury with an independent Magistrate…plus many have called for better transparency, for what amounts to a secret process.”
I am interested in police involved cases only. That is where the grand jury process fails. Yes, a single magistrate can be a problem. There are ways to manage the bias.
But the best option is an independent special prosecutor to present those cases.
On your second point I do not see how the secret process hurts the proceedings so badly that it’s a detriment to us citizens.
If the matter goes to trial then the trial becomes public anyhow.
If there is no indictment then on BALANCE one expects that an innocent person was spared public ridicule.
Please don’t cite the many instances of DA/Grand Jury malfeasance and info kept secret that could have saved a person. The legal system itself is expected to be above board where people act honestly. The Grand Jury is no worst or better on that than the overall US legal system.
Statistics bear out the truism that Grand Juries are tools of the Prosecution and they normally get their preferred result, we can safely assume that the result of the two most recent cases are a reflection that they were not prosecuted in a manner that would lead to different outcomes. The majority of the people in the US think that the Grand jury system has served the country well and they are not clamouring for any abolition indeed those two cases have shown the vast divide between black and white citizens on their assessment about the quality of law enforcement and justice. Additionally there hasn’t been a hue and cry from members of Congress about any changes and as Congress is now controlled by Republicans whose average constituency is 75% white (gerrymandering works) the Grand Jury system will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Two years ago this week a troubled white young man shot up a school in Sandy Hook a middle class white community killing 26 students and teachers. In the aftermath there was the President and some legislators calling for an assault weapons ban or some means of gun control, Congress dug in its heels and where are we now? The US hasn’t reached Sandy Hook level mourning or introspection about these cases.
One last thing many of these Prosecutors are elected does anyone think they will readily recuse themselves from cases because they self-admit to having some bias or conflict of interest?
The composition of the Michael Brown Grand Jury is reported to have had 3 Blacks sitting yet the decision was unanimous?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/grand-jury-in-michael-brown-case-black-members-white/article_6bbba56c-e28a-53d0-8b85-b20c36810fbd.html
Black Americans Are 12.6% of the US Population, Yet, they commit 32.5% of All Rapes, 34.1% of All Assaults 54.9% of All Robberies, and 49.4% of All Murders, 91% of Murdered Blacks, are Killed by Other Black Americans.
Q. Are white people to blame for these stats?
The truth isn’t Racist, it’s just the Truth..
David
Was not referring to you,as a post is just a post until such time as it is engaged,my amusement is over the engagees and I do accept Hants’ point on the fact that overseas bloggers need to vent.
The situation with the Cabinet and Agriculture,is one screaming to have the various bloggers offering a solution,just look at the comments on the Eric Garner blog.I am sure if the same energy was devoted to Bim we would be fine.
.
Why is it we have the ability to solve the problems of the world but not the ones staring us in our face,right here in Bim,possibly we have accepted the fact that it is unsolvable.
Zoe
As an Orthodox Yid
you should know biasedness
is in the biased
Fuk In Pigs R Racist
@Vincent
Almost all the comments on the Garner blog were posted by overseas commenters. The vast majority of BARBADIANS are turned off at the mention of agriculture. Estwick has the opportunity to use his popularity to make a difference but he has allowed himself to be cowered by the fear of kicking the party he is has sworn allegiance. If agriculture and the national interest must suffer as a result, so be it.
Did not know about this Bajan until now.
Milton King, was killed in South Africa during apartheid, for standing up for another black man. King was beaten beyond recognition while in police custody, and died soon after. – See more at:
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/60355/gillian-story-inspiration#sthash.ouvK4b7V.dpuf
@Vincent
Given the state of our legal system note jurisprudence elsewhere has implications for us as well. We live in a world heavily influenced by what is done in the USA.