- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Fantasy is my #1; I will give almost anything a chance if it has strong fantasy elements. Post apocalyptic, superhero, alternate history, science fantasy, some supernatural, romance, and a few fandoms (especially Game of Thrones) are also likely to catch my eye.
An interesting point to raise, and one I've seen brought up on national news networks today, but I would counter that the overwhelming majority of decisions to indict means that there is something very wrong with the grand jury system. There is a reason why only the United States still actually uses it, and I think case shows exactly why that is. The grand jury is supposed to listen to witnesses and see evidence and then decide whether or not there is probable cause for criminal charges to be filed. What the District Attorney did for the Michael Brown case was to use the grand jury for its intended purpose, and in fact presenting both sides of the case used to be the common practice for grand jury hearings. The way it has been used in the recent past, however, is that the DA will only present the evidence against the accused (and legally this is all that he or she must do) with not a word about anything that contradicts this, which of course means that the grand juries almost always decide to indict. As I heard multiple legal analysts on various news networks say, if a DA wants to get an indictment then they can absolutely get it done.To specifically answer this question, I don't think a lack of indictment was the right choice. In 2010, there were 162,000 cases of US attorneys prosecuting federal cases {Source}. Grand juries declined to indict eleven of those. For all of the others, there was deemed to be enough of a case or conflict of testimonies (and conflict of testimonies is definitely something going on with Ferguson) to take it to trial. Ignoring arguments about who was right or wrong, I feel there still should have definitely been an indictment, and that this should have been decided in a trial.
This, I feel, is evidence of the system being broken, not of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown case. If the grand jury were presented with all the evidence for all cases, as was done here, rather than only hearing one side of it, the number of frivolous prosecutions would drop dramatically and the number of grand juries that decline to indict would of course raise dramatically. Alternatively, if that cannot be done, the grand jury system out to be removed entirely because it serves no true purpose; it currently acts as an echo chamber for a DA's desire to indict, not as an actual barrier to faulty indictments. I see the Michael Brown case as a rare instance of the grand jury proving that it does have some use still in the modern era, not as a phenomenon spawned from corruption or bullshit or whatnot. They saw that the evidence available to try to prosecute Darren Wilson was nowhere near strong enough to merit an indictment, so they did not indict. It's how the system should actually work, not a problem with the system.