Untruth and consequences in Ferguson

Because, here’s the thing: There are a lot of good ethical and practical reasons why the police can’t really defend themselves in the court of public opinion—at least, not adequately. First, since they should always ostensibly be on the side of finding the truth, police PR campaigns create an obvious conflict of interest, making it look like they are engaged in the Blue Code of Silence. Additionally, any information they release could potentially poison a jury pool. I could go on…

This puts the police at an obvious disadvantage. Maybe in the old days, you could afford to wait a few months and let the process take care of itself—allow the slow wheels of justice grind on. But one gets the sense that this is impractical in the era of Twitter and 24-7 news coverage. Shutting up is a bad idea. You see this a lot when individuals who are accused of something decide to clam up, often under the advice of their attorney. When people accused of something make smart legal decisions, they are often also making very unwise public relations decisions. And I think the same thing applies to this situation.

The truth is that first impressions matter. In politics, once one candidate “defines’ the other candidate (before he can define himself) it’s nearly impossible to change the narrative. It’s game over. Once people believe something, they are disinclined to change their minds—even when overwhelming evidence suggests they should. But in the court of law these, initial perceptions matter little. Darren Wilson might have been convicted in the court of public opinion, but all that matters to the law is that—if he’s innocent—he should be be exonerated (or, in this case, simply not prosecuted) once the evidence is shown.