The Power and Pit of The Grand Jury

As most of America has heard by now, there have been violent and destructive riots occurring in Ferguson, Missouri ever since November 24^th, when the grand jury announced to decline to indict police officer Darren Wilson. This is a crucial time to take a moment and reflect on the structure and system of our government, specifically the grand jury.

 A grand jury is defined as "A panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime." The grand jury is one of the first procedures in a criminal trial, if used at all. In the federal system, a grand jury can consist of 16 to 23 people, all chosen from the same pool of people that provide trial jurors. Subsequently grand juries tend to be composed of the same kinds of people who serve on regular trial juries.

The grand jury for this case was made up of 12 people (9 white and 3 African American). Had I chosen the jury, I certainly would have made it more culturally diverse and balanced to help decrease the likelihood of viewers claiming there was a bias -- and of course giving both parties a fair trial. For the most part, their decision is exactly what legal analysts expected. It is commonly known that it is very difficult to bring a charge against a police officer who was involved in this kind of shooting while on duty. Likely because it turns into a "he-said she-said" situation, and obviously a police officer’s word is going to hold more weight than that of a criminal/"violent citizen". Normally this kind of incident would have been dealt with through an internal affairs investigation — not to a grand jury. But considering the political tension in Ferguson, especially after the images of Michael Brown’s body on a residential street in that city spread throughout St. Louis, and the world, a grand jury was hoped to satisfy the larger population.

After the outbreaks of riots, President Obama decided to address the nation with a very diplomatic speech that he hoped would respect and address all concerned. He started with this, “First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make.” He reminded the nation that if we want our government system to work, we much accept and respect the laws and decisions that are made. The case was presented to the grand jury, and the jury made a decision, that’s that.


He then continued by quoting Mr. Brown’s father, “Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: ‘Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.’  Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.”

May I just say, brilliant on the president’s behalf for quoting Michael’s father in an attempt to stop the riots. I may not agree with some of Obama’s political views, but when it comes to speeches, he always knows what to say and just how to say it (shoutout to his team of talented speech writers).

As for the quote, I couldn’t agree with Brown's father more. The outraged citizens of Ferguson absolutely have the right to protest about the jury’s decision, as many did. This is the way constructive change can be made for those who feel wronged! But burning the American flag, destroying their own town, and putting innocent citizens in harm’s way is NEVER the answer, it’s just the easy and reckless way out. Instead of organizing a strategic and meaningful protest, people decided to start lighting things on fire. What good could that ever bring about?

Reflect on this, “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” ― Mahatma Gandhi