Off With Her Head

`Idiot!' said the Queen, tossing her head impatiently; and, turning to Alice, she went on, `What's your name, child?'

`My name is Alice, …

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her a moment like a wild beast, screamed `Off with her head! Off--'ⁱ

... 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first – verdict afterwards.' ...ⁱⁱ

Shoot first, ask questions afterward.ⁱⁱⁱ

These are some of the ideas that have come to mind in recent days, in light of the decision of a Ferguson, Missouri grand jury not to indict a policeman who had killed an unarmed man, and in respect to the the riots and demonstrations that both preceded and followed that decision.^iv I don't know whether proper grand jury procedures were applied in this instance and I can't judge the facts of the case, but I do know that from a legal point of view the matter is settled. Demonstrations are going on all around the country, but it is contrary to our heritage to view someone as guilty until proved innocent. But that is what is happening.

It doesn't mean that no action can or should be taken. It only reinforces the principle which teaches us the problem that has to be dealt with in a way that offers a remedy that addresses the legal system – not the specific defendant. At least in terms of the response of the community at large. Certainly the family of an individual killed may decide to pursue relief based on civil violations, but the grand jury has already decided that there is no criminal case. From the standpoint of the law, no crime was committed. 

Those who believe that wrong was perpetrated may also involve themselves in peaceful civil disobedience, but they should be prepared to face prescribed legal penalties. The injuring of others, and the destruction of property, don't fall into the category of peaceful civil disobedience, and those who participate in that kind of activity are likely to be more interested in personal gain than in any attempt to correct a system that they view as oppressive. What they do represents a kind of general lashing out – venting rather than correcting. Perhaps that response is warranted psychologically,^v but it cannot be accepted in a democratic society.

Rioting is not the answer. When O. J. Simpson was acquitted there was no rioting by those convinced of his guilt. And there was none earlier – either before the trial or as it was taking place. Our laws call for an orderly and peaceful resolution of legal disputes, and that was the charge of the grand jury. Our legal system may be flawed, but its repair should be by legal means.

The decision as to the only acceptable outcome prior to a legal opinion being rendered, and the determination that justice wasn't done if the desired result is not reached, makes a mockery of the concept of presumed innocence. Presumed guilt is not an acceptable alternative. It is not a situation where affirmative action requires the conviction of the accused irrespective of the evidence.

There is a wide chasm between law enforcement and large segments of the community, and there are many reasons for it. Most significant among those reasons is an apparent failure of the legal system to provide the justice it promises. There is a perception – often valid – that those charged with enforcing the law are using it for their own purposes, and as a shield for their own prejudices. These are problems that call for rapid resolution, but that cannot be achieved by lawless behavior and the refusal to provide assistance in the investigation of crime. And it cannot be solved through the instigation of demonstrations by those whose political objectives are best served by unrest – people who wander the country looking for situations they can exploit. Reasoned discussion is more likely to provide an answer than violence. There are those who are experiencing the marginalization of large segments of their community, and there are others who feel the fear that ambiguous situations may cause. And those feelings are present among all who are involved. There is much to discuss and much that can be done. Legally.

In the meantime, however, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And don't break it either.

I        Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. Chapter 8.

ii       Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. Chapter 12.

iii      The best reference for an origin that I could find was by “Smoky Stover” who wrote in response to a question about its source: “I don't know the answer, but there's a widespread opinion, including my own, that it has a connection with the American 'Wild West.' If you Google the phrase, you won't find the first to use it, but you'll find references to cowboy days.” It is usually understood to mean “Don't take any chances. Act now and sort out the details later.”

iv       And those related to too many previous instances.

v        Viewing the deaths as an expression of lynching may justify demonstrations; it may provide a reason for protests; it may warrant the lobbying or replacement of public officials; but it does not legitimize anarchy. It may be prudent for law enforcement officers to permit a degree of lawlessness while people are “letting off steam,” but it remains lawlessness.