Everyone is running around saying they respect the decision
of the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman for murdering the unarmed child
Trayvon Martin in cold blood. Among the runners are the people who say they disagree
with the verdict of the jury but respect its decision anyway. No, I say,
neither the jury nor the verdict that was rendered are worthy of respect.
I begin my line of thought with the premise that justice is
the end while the law is only the vehicle that must lead to justice. But
experience has taught us that the law is an ass in the sense that it can never
be so well formulated, it will not cause injustice in one area while helping to
administer justice in another area. For this reason, some laws which are
written in several sections are seen to end with a clause that specifically
says nothing in this section will diminish or negate the sections that came
before it – or something to this effect.
Therefore, we can see here that the law itself does at times
engage in self-nullification if and when the potential exists that it may get
in the way of justice being fully administered by other sections of the same
body of laws. Thus, we see that the law recognizes the fact that justice is
supreme and must precede it when the two come into conflict. Yes, lawyers will
plead equity (justice) when the law is not on their side, and will plead the
law when equity is not on their side but in the end, justice must prevail no
matter what the law says.
And where there is a jury overseeing a trial, its job is to
make sure that justice is done first and foremost. The reason why the judge
instructs the jurors as to what the law says is not to ask them to help
implement it, but ask them to verify that the vehicle which took them through
the trial was used properly for, the judge, the lawyers and the prosecutors who
are trained in the law, can handle the law better than the jurors.
What is true about the jury of the peers is that the jurors
– who are human – can navigate through the nuances of the human elements of the
case that is before them. In their journey, they are expected to locate justice
and bring it to the fore. What they are not expected to do is chase after the
definition of a word or a clause in the law – something that the judge, the
lawyers and the prosecutors are better equipped to do and expected to do.
There is also the fact that the law is written not only by
the legislators but also the cases which are adjudicated by the judges and the
jurors. This means a vehicle already exits for judges and for jurors not only
to make laws but also amend them and nullify them when necessary. And there is
nothing more necessary in America at this time than to nullify the “Stand your
ground law” by which everyone is given a license to kill others in cold blood
as long as they do it away from witnesses – after which they can claim
self-defense and be acquitted.
In time, this will bring the Wild West of centuries ago to
the Southeast of today's America from where the insanity will spread to the
rest of the nation and soak it in blood more than it is already. The effect
will be an open season where Americans will hunt Americans, and take them down
like game in the urban jungles of the Republic.
For these reasons, the jury that acquitted Zimmerman does
not deserve any respect for, instead of nullifying a horrendous law, it gave it
more force by adding its voice to the case laws that will be cited in the
future.
Using one means or another, the verdict that was returned by
this jury must now be rendered moot in the name of sanity, and for the sake of
preserving life – American life.