Not Perfect, But the Best in the World
The criminal justice system is a process that takes time to be effective. The process does not begin with arrest or end with conviction. There are extreme cases where the “not guilty” were incarcerated, the “not guilty” and “guilty” were not provided due process, the “guilty” were set free, and all variations in-between. Any failure of the criminal justice system is almost always related to rushing the process. Rushing the process happens when law enforcement seeks to prove an opinion instead of discovering the truth and then forming an opinion. Rushing can also happen when those with limited information (i.e., media, protestors, politicians) get involved in the process. However, the media, protestors, and politicians can be to the process, especially when there is, or a lack of, transparency with the process. The problem we are running into is the determining of opinions before all the information is known. Then all additional information is skewed or discounted for the person to keep their original opinion because no one is ever wrong. How often do you see someone on social media, the media, or politicians come out and say their original opinion was wrong or admit to changing their opinion? When was the last time you admitted that you rushed to judgement and were wrong?
The recent incident in GA and the General Flynn case are perfect examples. The FBI agents had already formed their opinions and were seeking the information through an interview to prove their opinion. This is a reversal of the process. It can be referred to as entrapment where law enforcement sets up a crime for a person to commit. The courts recognize this is a tricky area and have strict case law relevant to it. Once those FBI notes before the interview were made public, there is no way a court would convict General Flynn. Especially when the previously released text messages also support the opinion that the FBI agents were out to get Trump through General Flynn.
The GA case is fundamentally the same. The video of the shooting led to opinions that additional information does not change. The familiarity of the shooters to the prosecutor raised legitimate questions. The lack of initial transparency created the justifiable public and media unrest. However, the shooting video is not proof of murder or racism. The video of Mr. Arbey walking around and into a house under construction then running out of the front door does not prove he was committing a crime and fleeing the scene. The video of Mr. Arbey standing inside the house surrounded by construction materials but not taking anything does not prove he did not commit, attempt to commit, or intend to commit a crime. The videos and many other pieces of evidence will be considered by a judge or jury and they will determine if there was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the circumstances.
I have sat on a criminal jury and weighed the evidence and how the law is phrased compared to the case information presented. It is a heavy burden as a law enforcement officer to take someone’s freedom for up to 72 hours of incarceration. It is even heavier for a jury to take someone’s freedom for months, years, or life. Without giving any details, the case I was a jury member for showed me a different side of the process. At the end, the prosecutor wanted to talk to us about the charges filed. Others in the prosecutor’s office wanted to charge a higher crime, but the prosecutor feared being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor was right, if she charged the higher charge, nearly half of the jury, including me, would not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The American Criminal Justice System is the best in the world. It is not perfect, and it is continually being improved. When people wrongly convicted on death row are being released, that is not proof the system is a failure, but proof that it works with some flaws needing improvement. There is still no other system in the world better. Failure is nearly guaranteed when the process is rushed and an opinion formed before the evidence is dutifully obtained and reviewed. Opinion must always be open to change, based on evidence and not emotion. The opinions of those without all the information should be challenged, same as the process without transparency.