Trayvon Martin and the Court of Public Opinion

As I follow and participate in various discussions about Trayvon Martin’s death, I’ve noticed quite a few people expressing frustration that this case is being tried in the “court of public opinion”. They feel Zimmerman isn’t getting a fair shake and that we should all shut up about the case and let the legal system do its job. I contend that the court of public opinion is a normal part of our legal system doing its job, and has been since the first time humans were asked to make a judgment call about something.

Those complaining about legal cases being hashed out in the public and media are usually those who support the person "on trial" in public. I’m sure I’ve made that same complaint at one time or another. The thing is, our legal system never operated in a vacuum. The court of public opinion is, and always has been, simply one more tool in the legal system's "toolbelt". Public opinion influences the creation of law, the interpretation of law, it influences verdicts, sentencing, appeals.

Would we really want it any other way? We elect our judges, district attorneys, attorney generals, and so on and by doing so, we (the public) set the tone for the sort of judicial system we want. What if our lawyers, judges and others in the legal profession paid absolutely no attention to what the public wanted, what the public believed? Surely I’m not the only person scared by that thought. Unfortunately, there are many constituencies that already feel as though our legal system does not consider their wants and needs, but that is a blog post for another day.

I should note that this is not just my opinion. I took at look at the law school websites for Harvard and Columbia. Both have courses, centers and faculty publications that focus on or incorporate the notion that public opinion plays a real and vital part in our legal system and that the legal system has a major impact on public policy. Consider Columbia’s course on Law, Media and Public Policy or their faculty member’s book, Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy,  or Harvard’s courses on Social Movements and Media, Race and Politics and their faculty member’s publication Court of Public Opinion: Government Accountability and Judicial Independence . Obviously law schools consider the court of public opinion to be relevant to their industry and and an important part of their students’ education.

When it comes to Trayvon Martin, is it appropriate that the public weigh in with their opinion before George Zimmerman is given his day in court? I certainly think so, and the reason is very simple:

Our legal system had already determined that Zimmerman’s actions were within the bounds of the law before the national public ever got wind of what happened to Trayvon. The legal system decided this the very night that Trayvon was killed, when they took Zimmerman at his word that his actions were legally justified and chose to not perform a standard and thorough investigation.

Even in the weeks that followed Trayvon’s death, the Sanford Police Department acted in the interest of George Zimmerman and against the insterest of Trayvon’s family. It was not until the public got wind of the story – through media and especially through social media – that the SPD’s incompetence was questioned. It wasn’t until the court of public opinion lost its mind over this case, that the FBI took at look and said, “You have messed this up and we’re taking over.” We still don’t know whether Zimmerman will face trial for a crime related to Trayvon’s death, but we have a much better chance of that happening now that the FBI is involved.

When you have a system that is already biased and structured to support one segment of the population over another, the court of public opinion is vital to the service of justice. It also facilitates public discourse on difficult topics – in this case, topics like racism, profiling and violence. These conversations are vital to the progress of our justice system and our national health. Do you really want a justice system that has no interaction with the will of the public?

Do Trayvon's Imperfections Mean He Doesn't Deserve Justice?

Has your perception of Trayvon Martin changed recently? Did the pictures of him with a grill in his mouth, the knowledge that he was suspended for having a plastic baggie w/trace amounts of marijuana make you think of him as a “thug”? It turns out that he’s bigger than he looked in the earliest released pictures of him, does that make you think differently of what happened the night that he died?

I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is, “Does a person need to be completely innocent in order to deserve justice?” I sure hope not, otherwise I’m SOL if something bad happens to me. We play a dangerous game when we decide someone isn’t worthy of receiving justice – or even due process to begin with – because of things they’ve done in their past (no matter how recent that past is). Where do we draw the line with this sort of reasoning, and who makes that decision?

Does Trayvon’s suspension, or his grill, or what he said on Facebook/Twitter change what happened the night he died? Does it change the fact that he was unarmed? Does it change the fact that he was breaking no laws by walking through a residential neighborhood? Does it change the fact that the police dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to approach Trayvon, but he did so anyway? Does it change the fact that the police still haven’t arrested Zimmerman?

No, these things haven’t caused facts to change. They have, however, changed some people’s minds about whether Trayvon deserves justice. While this is unfortunate, it’s also pretty normal. We feel sympathetic to people when we identify with them, and we tend to have less sympathy when we perceive them as being “bad” or “other” in some way. What “bad” means is subjective and different for every person.

Natalee Holloway was drunk the night she was killed. Was she bad? Did she not deserve justice?

I knew a guy who was killed by accident when his friend was messing around with a gun. This was at a party where teens were drinking underage (i.e. illegally). He was not nice to me and was a bit of a bully. Was he bad? Did he not deserve justice?

JFK cheated on his wife. Was he bad? Did he not deserve justice?

A person might scare us, they might look like something we can’t stand. They may be a jerk or promiscuous or dishonest or obnoxious. They may be involved in something illegal. They may make their living by stirring up drama and conflict. That does not mean they should be afforded any less a chance at justice than anyone else.

Whatever Trayvon was involved in, whomever he was, does not change the fact that his death did not need to happen and was not deserved. If a week ago, you believed that what happened to Trayvon was unfair and that justice must be served, then you should believe that now. It was not Trayvon’s responsibility to us to be perfect and living up to our personal standards of “good”. Rather, it is our responsibility to Trayvon – and imperfect people everywhere – to uphold legal and ethical standards of justice. You may like and identify with Trayvon less, but that doesn’t mean he deserved to die.