Renouncing Evil
The Three Holy Days were a strange affair in Milwaukee. On Good Friday we watched two breaking live news stories simultaneously. The first was the discovery of the bodies of the two boys missing for a month. Ironically, the sad finding of their bloated bodies from an accidental drowning in a park lagoon offered some relief, as most of us had assumed wrong doing that made us all feel unsafe.
The second story was the verdict in the case of three Milwaukee police officers on trial for the brutal beating of Frank Jude, Jr. The incident occured at one of the officer's homes who hosted a party attended by many cops and civilians. Alledgedly, Mr. Jude attempted to steal a police badge so the three officers (according to their own testimony) placed themselves on duty despite the fact they had been drinking, and proceded to beat Mr. Jude nearly to death. Witnesses say that up to a dozen officers were kicking Mr. Jude while he lay on the ground. The doctor who examined him later said that he suffered the worst ear damage that doctor had ever seen as a result of objects being jammed into his ears.
Well, that's what most of us thought had happened. Most of us in the community expected an easy verdict of guilty. But that is not how an all white jury saw what happened that night between the three white officers and the biracial victim. Apparently the all white jury thought the assault-fairy beat the man nearly to death without anyone actually touching him. Amazingly only the civilians at the party saw anything happen. Those trained to fight crime were "unaware" of any comotion. Once officers showed up at the scene in response to a call, they had trouble making the other "on duty" officers stop beating the man. In the end, nine officers were fired and no one was talking.
I spent Holy Saturday angry and perturbed. Is this justice? Is this the "justice" of Jesus' own trial being exercised in 2006? Apparently Jim Crow didn't die in the sixties. He just moved to Milwaukee. Our city is ripe with racial tension, and the Milwaukee Police Department is its own worst enemy for gaining the public's trust to be part of the solution. While I was shocked by this verdict, most people who have lived in Milwaukee for some time were not surprised, because they've seen it time and time again.
Then during the Easter Vigil, my emotions changed. The pastor began the litany: do you renounce the forces of evil? And I responded, "I renounce them." My own voice echoed in my ears: "I RENOUNCE THEM!" My anger subsided and I was filled with hope, a hope that made me impatient to begin acting for justice.
The next morning, on Monday, I joined pastors from around the city in a prayer vigil and call to action located on the steps of St. Benedict's Church across the street from the county courthouse. The local media captured images of my wife and I holding hands in prayer with people of all races. Together, we demanded that our political leaders change police policy that enables cover-ups and codes of silence, that federal civil rights charges be brought upon the officers, and we introduced people in the city to our local hotline to report police brutality.
The next morning, on Tuesday, I skipped my ethics class in order to do ethics. My wife, my three year old daughter and myself joined over 3,000 of our neighbors in a march from the county courthouse to the federal court building, again demanding that federal charges be brought against the officers. Cameras for the evening news captured my daughter "marching" on my shoulders -- seeking justice for all people of every age, color, creed, and neighborhood. We taught her the reason we were marching in words that a three year old could repeat, breaking down the complex issues of systemic racism to the simple phrase: "We want Milwaukee to be a nice place for everybody." And repeat them she did, over and over. That evening she wanted us to play "march" and led us in shouting "No Justice! No Peace!"
Obviously, I'm not saying all police are bad. There's only a few bad apples. But the system is broken. Justice is not served. And the hope of Jesus' resurrection makes us impatient for the justice of his shalom. Despite the obvious injustices surrounding us, we are called to participate in the transformation of shalom -- not only despite these injustices, but more acurately "through" them.
1 comment:
You raise good points, Bill. There are some details I left out of my telling of the incident.
I'm willing to concede that if I were to meet each person on the jury individually, I might not detect any hint of racism in them. However, we should ask ourselves whether an all white jury serves justice in a city whose citizens are mostly persons of color but whose police force is over 90% white. During the jury selection, the defense was able to eliminate the final two jury candidates who were persons of color, because they "didn't pay close enough attention." Maybe that is true, but even if it is, shouldn't our justice system require a judge in such a situation to throw out the jury and start the process over? This is more than just a public relations concern. It's a matter of ensuring we are judged by a jury of our peers, even including those peers who may offer different life experiences and perspectives.
Due to the culture of secrecy among the police ("you never know who you'll need to have your back on the streets") the prosecution had a difficult time making their case based on eye witness accounts. At least this is the case for the police officers present at the house party, but the civilians present were willing to come forward and testify. Why did the jury favor the hazy recollection and opportune ignorance of police testimony over the clear and exact testimony of civilian eye witnesses?
Members of the jury said they know someone is responsible for the beating, and it may even be these three officers, but the jury wasn't willing to convict them without sufficient evidence. If this is true, then their decision is admirable. Yet the two alternate jurors who heard the entire case but were not part of deliberations said they were shocked the jury could aquit them even on the evidence that was presented.
Another issue is the ambiguous instruction given to juries about aquitting a defendant if they perceive a "reasonable doubt." I've never yet served on a jury for a criminal case, but I've talked to many who have. They speak of the confusion their juries had about what a "reasonable doubt" is. Members of this jury in the Jude case raised the same point. Why does our sytem confuse our juries in their instruction, leaving the folcrum for the scales of justice open to interpretation -- in this case the interpretation of an all white jury? One jury may define "reasonable doubt" as a counter hypothesis sustained by evidence, while another jury may define it as not being completely convinced by the evidence presented beyond an imaginable possibility. So if eye witnesses testify they saw Mr. Jude's face kicked by this shoe connected to a leg that is attached to the torso underneath the neck which supports the face of the defendant, well maybe a "reasonable doubt" is that the eye witnesses confused the sequence of body parts connecting Mr. Jude's beaten face to the face of a particular officer, and the jury should therefore move to aquit. But even if such a possibility could be imagined, it would still not be beyond an alternative hyopthesis sustained by the evidence that these three officers were somehow involved among the dozen perpetrators.
I should also say that Police Chief Nan Haggerdy is to be commended for firing nine officers involved. But no one on the force was questioned about their involvement in the incident until three months after the complaint was raised. Then this week the Police and Fire commission overturned some of the Chief's firings.
So my charges of racism are aimed not at any one individual (though one of the officers involved has several race related brutality complaints on his record, and is in civil court now for one of them). Rather, my charge of racism is aimed at the systemic sin of our society that implicates each and every one of us -- if the movie "Crash" has taught us anything.
Our societal system is broken, and racisim is a major reason why. Maybe race race wasn't the deciding factor in this case. Maybe it was economics. Maybe it was the fact that the victim worked as a stripper. One juror said that Mr. Jude was so big (i.e. physically fit like an NFL linebacker) that he could only have recieved such injuries if he was fighting back and therefore also responsible. This justifies the police to jam objects in his ears? This justifies police to continue beating him once he's laying motionless on the ground, not stopping even when on duty officers show up and try to separate them? Maybe that's not racism. But it certainly isn't justice.
I agree that reconciliation is the Christian vocation, not confrontation. But how does the healing process begin without first diagnosing the wrong and injustice commited in my name? How else can I take on the suffering of the oppressed other than praying hand-in-hand and walking side-by-side with my suffering neighbors to say, "an injustice to you is an injustice to all of us"? How else can I repent of my own guilt in a sinful system without speaking out publicly to say, "This is not just; this is not how I want to be involved"?
This was the realization I came to when I renounced the forces of evil during the Easter Vigil. I was not renouncing the speck in the jurors' eyes. I was renouncing the log in my own. The system is broken beyond individual accountability yet each of us is held responsible.
Post a Comment