The Aftermath: Grand Juries and the Deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner
Seeking Justice
In a series of pivotal events that have sent shockwaves across the nation, two grand juries have recently determined the fate of police officers involved in the deaths of unarmed black men: Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York. The decisions, met with both public outcry and calls for reform, have reignited debates about racial profiling, police brutality, and the role of grand juries in the justice system.
Understanding Grand Juries
A grand jury is a body of citizens tasked with examining evidence and determining whether there is sufficient cause, known as probable cause, to believe that a crime has been committed. In the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, the grand juries examined the circumstances surrounding their deaths and considered charges against the involved officers.
In most states, including Missouri and New York, grand juries are not required to indict if they do not believe there is enough evidence to support criminal charges. However, the process has been criticized for its secrecy and the lack of transparency in its decision-making.
The Grand Jury Decisions
The Ferguson grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. The Staten Island grand jury also declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner. The decisions sparked widespread protests and demonstrations, with many people questioning the accountability of police officers and the fairness of the justice system.
The grand jury decisions highlight the complexities and challenges in addressing police misconduct. The lack of indictments in both cases has raised concerns about whether the system is effective in ensuring justice for victims of police brutality, particularly when the victims are black men.
Comments