A Green Light for Racist Vigilantes
|← Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class||Argumentative Essay Sample on Freedom of Speech →|
The entire legal and layman communities of the United States of America, as well as internationally, are nowadays perplexed and virtually split into two antagonizing camps because of the one of the most controversial and objectionable court rulings ever delivered by the judicial authorities of the United States of America. George Zimmerman, 28 years old, the self-proclaimed vigilante of the Miami neighborhood was acquitted of the charges of first-degree murder of Martin Travon, 17 years of age. A great number of civil advocacy groups as well as anti-racism activists have raised their concerns upon the matter, speculating that selective justice and biased opinion of the court and jury took place in this case.
The article published by Rich Benjamin serves as a cumulative deposit of the critical opinions and encapsulates the major argumentative statements of the prosecution line and the public opinion opposing the verdict. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the arguments utilized by the defense team are more persuasive legally and logically, and to manifest that the opinion of the critics is populist and shortfalls academic credibility and legal substantiation.
In his article “Zimmerman Verdict: A Green Light for Racist Vigilantes” the author seeks to prove that the murder of the victim shall be classified as intended homicide and that the alleged criminal should be found guilty and sentenced in accordance with the law. The main arguments have been presented as follows. First and foremost, he considers that the investigation was not conducted as it is prescribed by the existing legal provisions of criminal procedure of the United States of America. In particular, the alleged assailant was not drug and alcohol examined, while the victim underwent these procedures posthumously. Moreover, he states that the rest of the obligatory procedures, such as expert witnessing and evidence collection were not exercised. Secondly, the author fervently advocates the idea that that substantive matters of law have not been interpreted correctly, the act perpetrated by the defendants most socially and morally unethical and therefore the verdict is not legitimate. Lastly, he speculates over the public opinion that this court decision can serve as a precedent for the future decisions that may hypothetically legitimize future homicides of the Afro-American people looking suspiciously.
In general, the arguments seem to be persuasive and academically viable. However, it is evident that they lack legal substantiation as well as the relevant logical evidences.
However sound and logical the argumentation of the author may seem to be, it shall be refuted because it lacks legal background, logical substantiation and public support. Before the arguments are developed further, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the opinion of the author is merely a replica of the official indictment brought by the office of district attorney to the court of law, interpreted into the popular language and opulent with the populist allegations. In any event, this structure of the proposed argumentation must reach public domain and receive respective support and recognition.
First and foremost, the investigation procedure was completed in full accordance with existing procedural and substantive criminal law of the United States of America in general, and the state of Florida in particular. In accordance with the court ruling, the investigators fully complied with the procedural provisions dictated by the existing procedural law and have taken all necessary precautions in order to collect evidences and to question witnesses. Moreover, several examinations have been conducted in order to dramatize the situation and to ascertain what indeed took place that night. No charges have been brought against the officers assigned to manage the case, as well as no disciplinary actions were applied. Moreover, the officers arrived at the place of the event were duly questioned by the jury and by the judge in the court of law. The jury, and the judge in their turn found the argumentation highly persuasive and veritable. Besides, no disciplinary actions have been taken against those officers either by the office of the Dist. Atty. or by other authorized supervising authorities of the criminal justice system of the United States of America. The USA is universally recognized as the leader in this paradigm and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all necessary precautions and measures have been taken to guarantee that the investigation procedure was carried out in full accordance with the law, and no omissions or criminal offensive professional negligence took place in this very case. In accordance with the existing popular scholarly opinion what is encapsulated into the judiciary instruments shall be under any events regarded as a divine truth and no deviations thereof are allowed.
Secondly, in conformity with opinion of the defense team, supported by the respective legal decision there was no persuasive need to have the alleged criminal tested on alcohol or drug intoxication, since his deportment suggested that he acted as a reasonably prudent person under those circumstances. As far as the postmortem examination of the victim is concerned, this procedure is explicitly dictated by the existing code of criminal procedure of the United States of America, and by the criminal law of the state of Florida. Therefore, the investigators fully complied with the professional obligations in this case.
Thirdly, the author of the article is trying to persuade the targeted audience that the matters of the have been interpreted incorrectly by the judge and the jury. The argument seems to be the most fragile academically and legally, since only the Court of Appeal is legally entitled to deliver such statements and to adjudicate thereupon. It can be hardly expected that the author is an expert in the field of law, and mere citing and reciting of the dissenting lawyers opinion, whose competence is also dubious is not sufficient in this case. Most importantly, the alleged assailant was acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution team failed to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and this factor is fully sufficient to make the verdict standing. The judge cited the existing case law on the subject, speculated on the matters of the statutory law of the United States and the state of Florida and over legal matters together combined have been found sufficient to vindicate Mr. Zimmerman.
To sum up, it is necessary to stress the fact that the only viable argument is that the defense line is that this action may be classified as unethical. However ethical issues are not necessarily legal and vice versa. In general, the vindication of this person is legally and socially justified.