That thing I don't want to write about today

I want to write about other things, but I feel like it would be weirdly irresponsible to not write something about Treyvon Martin, considering how much it’s in the news today, and all over social media, and how unsettling it is.

I can’t, of course, come to any real conclusion of guilt or innocence; I wasn’t there. I do believe it’s a travesty of justice, in my personal opinion, but I was not there on the jury. I was not there being asked if I believed without doubt that I could convict someone of the charges raised.  I don’t know that I believe in a life for a life. It’s a tragedy this young man was shot, and that speaks to a much larger conversation. I don't think shooting an unarmed person can be warranted. 

I was also not there in the jury that convicted Marissa Alexander, a woman in Florida sentenced by the same judge who prosecuted the Treyvon Martin case,  given 10 to 20 years in prison for firing warning shots after suffering domestic abuse. That seems a miscarriage of justice to me.  

Another fury is the twitter commenting reminding Kim Kardashian, while showing her support for Treyvon Martin, that her father was OJ Simpson’s defense lawyer and got him off when they believe he should have been convicted. He was acquitted, but he was wealthy.  Is the argument that his wealth got him off, so wealth and celebrity trump everything else? But he was convicted in a civil trial and of a later crime. What about gender? If he had been a woman?  Sexuality?  If he had been gay and it was his partner? Where do those fall on the scale of reasons to acquit or convict? What evil, strange scale would that be? How would you test it? What combinations ensure freedom? What is the winning combination of celebrity, wealthy, sexual preference, gender and race?

I do not wish to be incendiary, I don’t have an answer the conversation. That perhaps, is because the conversation is too big for an answer.  I am not willing to say, “Oh, well, that’s the way it is” and let it go. I’m troubled by it – that’s an understatement. I’m scared, I’m disturbed, I’m outraged.  It does not even feel like we have two justice systems. It feels like we have different justice systems in different states, and ones that can be swayed by race, gender, money, sexuality, personal prejudices. I do not want to live in Florida, that’s for sure. When this happens, core safety feels threatened. My safety feels threatened.

 If this jury was of George Zimmerman’s peers, it’s possible they all think like him. Or it’s possible that they really were confused, and knew they had his life in the balance as well.  They also must have been aware of the media scrutiny – I can’t believe that did not weigh on them as well. I don’t know. I wasn’t in the room. Pull one string and it's connected to a pack of dynamite.

I do not think this verdict is simple. I do not think any of the miscarriages of justice that we’ve had in this country are simple.  Well, that’s not true – some of them are clearly based on bias - race, gender, sexuality, economic. That’s happened in the past, many times.  I'm probably not going out on a limb saying that I am on the side that thinks racial profiling is part of what happened in this case. That’s part of the outrage, if not all of it. That is perhaps why I’m reluctant to write about it: I have no simple solution, no clear idea of action, no uncomplicated feeling. 

I was listening to the radio last week (104.3 fm in LA I believe), and the call-in show had people, well, bragging about the ways the avoided jury duty.  I’ve been talking about this with people all week, during the trial. So many voices that are outraged are probably some of the same voices without time or inclination to serve on a jury. They feel inconvenienced, and figure out ways to get out of it and back to their lives.  How though, can there be a jury of peers, when people do not show up for jury duty? How can we be outraged when there is a travesty of justice is if we don’t show up for our communities, except to express outrage? I want to know who showed up to serve on the jury for Zimmerman, and what jury selection was like.

There are so many disturbing travesties of justice in the history of this country. There are however, reversals as well. And there are many people acquitted of crimes they didn’t commit. People who are exonerated.  I heard a story this weekend about a woman who was 19 and convicted of a drug charge after being told she would be given probation. She was told she would get probation if she pled guilty, but the judge wanted to make an example of her, so she was given 10 – 20 years in prison, with no evidence. She escaped, raised a family, was found, brought back to prison after 23 years, and waited for a year for charges to be dropped, as there weren’t sufficient charges to prosecute in the first place. Our system is broken, confusing, huge, overwhelming.  The only way, though, for people to do anything about it is to get involved.  I hope that people who are upset will report when called for jury duty.

I saw a very disturbing short film at Outfest yesterday. The action was two gay men being hung by men in military looking uniforms. The men looked Middle Eastern. There was no dialogue. It was devastating, disturbing. This is happening now.

Our system isn’t perfect, but I don’t know that I wouldn’t trade it for what I see elsewhere. In fact, other systems have been modeled on ours. I do hope that this spurs people to get involved in fixing it.

Ugh. See why it's the thing I don't want to write about today?  My thoughts are with the families, with that woman serving 10-20 years for shooting a warning shot and convicted under the same law that Zimmerman was acquitted under. So angry. And her case makes me angrier because no one died or was hurt, and she is not with her children but in prison. Sent to prison for wanting to protect them and herself, when she had a restraining order in place that he violated. Her jury took 15 minutes. That makes me sad and angry. I am actually hoping that the noise around that case will cause it to be reviewed, and maybe something good will come out of this.

So is it jury selection? Is it confusing laws? Is it having to uphold a law on a jury you may not believe in or understand, but have to follow the rules of the court?  Will our system, like any system, remain flawed?

I prefer it to vigilante justice, but that is just what was on trial with Zimmerman. Do we have a fair trial whose purpose is to give assent to vigilantism?

I am lost on this one.

Thanks for reading. I am no clearer than when I started.  Even identifying the questions on this is complicated. A young man lost a life, and that's tragic. Part of a nation feels unsafe, and I'm sure part feels vindicated and given permission to use their guns.

I hope this verdict doesn't result in more fear, but I don't see how it can't. I hope, like I said, it spurs people on to conversation and more action.