Skip to main content

Do the McMichaels Deserve a Fair Trial?

Let me ask you a question.  Do you believe that the McMichaels deserve a fair trial?

Think about your answer for a moment.

Now, allow me to rephrase it.

Do the McMichaels, human beings and citizens of the United States, deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law?

If you say No, you are denying the most fundamental principle of our justice system.

Let me be clear.  I think it is likely that the McMichaels are guilty of a heinous crime.  I believe that they should be tried in a court of law, and, if convicted, be punished for that crime.

Again, let me be clear.  Public outcry was warranted.  They should have been (and now have been) charged and put on trial for their acts.

But they do deserve that trial.  They deserve to have their day in court.

Even war criminals get a trial.

Even serial killers get a trial.

Even terrorists get a trial.

Even the McMichaels deserve a trial.

And these trials are not mere formalities.  They are genuine, fair trials in a court of law.  This is a fundamental human right, and to deny that is to uproot many of the foundational principles of our nation. 

Public outcries have called for justice, and rightly so, but many of those voices seem to be skipping the trial and jumping straight to sentencing.  There is video evidence, and it appears to be damning, but that is not the whole story.  The video is never the whole story.  The video will be presented as part of the evidence in the trial, and the jury will make a decision.  That's how justice is supposed to work.

But justice is not being executed, right?  That's the whole problem, right?

Right, which is why we must call for justice, not another lynching.

We cannot procure justice by subverting it.  To lynch the McMichaels in the court of public opinion reduces us to their level.  To truncate the process of justice, presuming to know what happened that fateful day, makes us no better than the accused.  The answer to injustice is justice, not more injustice.  As the proverb goes, two wrongs don't make a right.  We cannot correct injustice by perpetrating more of it.

As Christians, justice should be a priority, both legal and social justice.  We should be shocked and appalled at the historic treatment of our black brethren and we should call for all men to receive justice, regardless of the color of their skin.  This is why it has been distressing to see how many Christians have skipped the trial and have gone straight to condemning the McMichaels.  As we work for social justice, we must not ignore the basic tenets of legal justice.  A fair trial is not simply an American concept, but a Biblical one.  If we are insulted by the miscarriage of justice in this case, the answer is not to bypass justice and make public opinion the judge, jury, and executioner.  Presuming guilt is not the Christian thing to do.  If justice is what we want, then we must follow the legal process to justice.  If we are infuriated that the McMichaels took justice into their own hands, presuming Ahmaud's guilt because of the color of his skin, we must not respond by denying justice to them.

Do I think that they are guilty?  Sure.  Do I think that they deserve a fair trial?  Absolutely.  36 seconds of shaky video, as damning and disturbing as it is, isn't enough to incarcerate two men for the rest of their lives.  I wasn't there.  You weren't there.  There is more to the story.  The McMichaels deserve a fair trial in a court of law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...