Trayvon, George, and the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof can be seen in two ways: the burden the prosecutors bear as they try their case AND the burden of the plaintiff (or victim or survivor) to prove the case was worth bringing.

Any talk of the merits of the jury system in this trial is moot. At the end of the day, a number of civilians heard arguments, received instructions about the law, and made a decision using what they had. Our jury system is not perfect, but there are few democratic alternatives.

But we know justice is seen with human eyes, and I know this to be true: Trayvon Martin, even in death, had a higher burden of proving that he did not bring his death on himself than a white male teenager would have.

Benefit of the doubt is a powerful concept in human relations because it creates a space where you can excuse someone even if you don't believe them. It is essential to the functioning of a democracy, where we can't even consider everyone, let alone know them, but we must live together.

But Trayvon had less space to move in. Why else would a toxicology test be conducted on his corpse and not George? Why else would it matter whether he smoked pot or was suspended from school?

At the time of his encounter with George and during his trial, Trayvon was both expected to explain himself but was not able to speak. He was under examination at times others wouldn't be. And because he failed this "examination" he's dead and a sense of injustice hangs over his death.

Many people have used random facts about the lives of Trayvon and George to justify what has happened to them. For Trayvon, the facts include his purchase of Skittles, his wearing of a hoodie, and his status as a student. For George, they include his feeding a homeless person and his mentoring two black youth.

These facts are irrelevant to the case: while they may try to paint a fuller portrait of George, they do so at the expense of Trayvon. Why must one person be humanized at the expense of the other? If you're compelled to lighten the burden of the suspect, why can't the victim's burden be lightened too?

If George can be given the benefit of the doubt - "A person who mentors black youth wouldn't purposefully kill one" - then why can't the same courtesy be extended to Trayvon - "Trayvon wearing a hoodie makes him a thug as much it makes Mark Zuckerberg a thug".

If you can't do that, consider your biases and your values. But first read this:

"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded."
- RFK

And then ask yourself this:
- Was the death of Trayvon Martin necessary?
- Would the death of George Zimmerman have been necessary if the roles had been reversed?

Let us all think about this so that we may move forward better people. Amen.