Verdict – but jury’s still out

THERE WAS a collective sigh of relief all over the world when a guilty verdict was returned in the US against George Floyd’s ex-police-officer killer.

But while this outcome has been hailed as a cause for hope – potentially a watershed moment in US race relations – the problem of a toxic law-enforcement culture and the issue of sentencing remain, rendering rose-tinted views of the future somewhat premature.

The verdict is of significance due to the fact that often abuses of power, even those captured on video, have gone unpunished. Various legal tests – such as the use of reasonable force, or a specific intention to harm – have been applied by juries in ways that have tended to uphold privileged positions, as opposed to imposing strict standards of conduct.

The 2015 case of Sandra Bland, who was stopped by highway police for switching lanes without signalling, then ended up dead at a police station as a result of what authorities said was suicide, never even made it to trial. A grand jury declined to indict anyone with oversight in the matter. It was feared Ms Bland, an African-American woman, was the victim of abuses of power by white cops.

So a single verdict in a high-profile case as important as Mr Floyd’s would appear to buck a trend, in addition to having symbolic significance beyond America’s shores.

Yet even before there was time to celebrate the avoidance of a miscarriage of justice, another police shooting involving an African-American victim occurred. A 16-year-old girl was shot dead by police in Ohio on Tuesday.

This alone points to the fact that the deterrent impact of criminal proceedings is one thing, but an actual change in the behaviour and prejudices of law-enforcement officers is another. The latter is the root of the problem, the former a remedy after the fact.

Whether the US has the political will to tackle these problems head-on is a complex issue affected by institutional, legislative, political and social divides in diverse US states. For example, some question whether the Floyd verdict might harden the resolve of the bigoted.

Additionally, there remains the matter of sentencing.

Mr Floyd’s killer faces anywhere between 12 ½-75 years behind bars. The judge in the case will have to decide what sentences to impose for individual charges (there were three) and to work out whether these sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.

As a result, depending on the principles applied, there could be disquiet over the appearance of the officer involved getting a slap on the wrist if the lower end of the scale is invoked.

Real change? The jury’s still out.