[Feature] Unraveling Ferguson

Around 400 deaths result annually from shootings by the police in the United States (US). However, only a small proportion of police officers are prosecuted. Even after conviction, officers receive minimal charges, and some even rejoin the police force. In order to prosecute a police officer, major legal, institutional and social obstacles have to be overcome.

In the US as well as most of the countries around the world, prosecution is carried out by the prosecutors. During investigations, the prosecutor works together with a police detective. In order to gather the necessary evidence, the prosecutor relies on witness statements from the officer involved and other officers at the scene. In some cases, the only living witnesses are the police officers. While such a close relationship between the police and the prosecutor is helpful in homicide investigations, situations such as the Michael Browning shooting where the police officer is the defendant for the case, give rise to a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Thus, many prosecutors are reluctant on pursuing such cases.

For the case of Officer Wilson, the prosecutors took months to collect and present evidence to the grand jury. The long time lag between the shooting and the prosecution made the public forget about the case, and short-term demands were muted. Also, the prosecutor took an unconventional approach to make his case. Instead of making a coherent, concise presentation to the jury and a call for specific charge, the prosecutor presented the jury with all the evidence and allowed them to decide whether an indictment was justified. This approach confused the jury and undermined their confidence, rendering them to avoid an indictment.

Even if police officers are convicted, they are still likely to have a favorable ruling from the US Supreme Court. In the case of 1989 Graham v. Conner, the US Supreme Court stated that the use of deadly force to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the officer from physical threat is permitted. The court added that police officers have to make split-second decisions during life-threatening situations, a factor that the court must take that fact into consideration when making a verdict. In other words, police officers are allowed to increase the extent of force used to arrest a person if that person resists. The court added that the totality of circumstances must take into consideration the split-second nature of police decision-making.

The US legal system’s reliance on juries is another problem. Local residents make up the grand jury and criminal court juries. For cases regarding police misconduct, most of the citizens have a tendency to favor the police. Also, when asked to put themselves in the officers’ shoes, the members of the jury tend to side with the police and not the victim.

Although some believe that the US is a post-racial society, racism still exists, even in the legal sector. Research shows that whites are more likely to be in favor of the police than are blacks. In the case of Ferguson shooting, the fact that there were more white members of the jury would have played in favor of the defendant officer.

Lawmakers have also expressed their concern on the matter but have offered few solutions to the problem. Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, had strong words to say. “This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that black lives hold no value; that you may kill black men in this country without consequences or repercussions,” she said in a statement. “This is a frightening narrative for every parent and guardian of black and brown children, and another setback for race relations in America.”

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said “This result underscores the legal hurdles faced in holding the police accountable for abuse of authority and further illustrates the need for major reform in our criminal justice system.”

After the decision by the jury not to indict Officer Wilson, Brown’s family released a statement imploring others to “join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera.” While some states block the use of such devices on police uniforms, others are implementing the use body cameras. One of the reasons against the use of body cameras to monitor police behavior is the cost. However, police officers in Greensboro, North Carolina may soon be wearing cameras after the Greensboro Police Foundation raised more than $100,000 for the purchase of said cameras. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri and other lawmakers are talking about federal funding. Yet issuing every police officer on patrol duty a camera will be difficult for regional police departments as a police camera costs around $800 to $1200.

Recently, President Barack Obama announced a plan to dedicate $263 million for increasing the use of body cameras by law enforcement agencies. $75 million over three years will go to the purchase of cameras as well and improvements in training schemes.

Interestingly, a study done by the Mesa Police Department in Arizona reported that the use body cameras reduced public complaints and use-of-force complaints by 40 and 75 percent, respectively.

Copyright © The KAIST Herald Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution prohibited