Although George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges against him, he is certainly guilty in the court of public opinion. However, the court of law adheres to a stricter set of rules.

The outcome of the case has sparked outrage and protests in the streets of cities across the United States. Some protests in Los Angeles have become violent, as reported Tuesday by The New York Times.

People are angry and disgusted by the outcome of the case, but it is necessary to respect the process and respect the verdict.

Ultimately, the not-guilty verdict proves that, with any doubt remaining in the minds of jurors, a guilty verdict cannot be reached. This is something we should celebrate, not denigrate.

The Zimmerman case has raised poignant questions about race relations in modern America, “stand your ground” laws and gun laws in general. Sadly, the case will undoubtedly now be used as a barometer for the state of the nation’s justice system as a whole.

Trials such as this one highlight the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials, as Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic writes, are not “searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Criminal trials, instead, are searches for the truth within the facts and evidence a jury can legally consider.

Extraneous matters include the consideration of racial profiling, which plays a huge role in Zimmerman’s guilty conviction in the court of public opinion. At the beginning of the trial, Judge Debra Nelson went so far as to forbid either side from using the phrase “racial profiling.”

There have been racial elements to this case from the start.

Zimmerman is Latino and Trayvon Martin was black. Many have speculated that if it were not for the color of Martin’s skin, Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car and followed him. This assessment of the situation might be true, and serves as a cold reminder of the great lengths we have yet to come regarding race relations in this country.

Still, the trial was not a debate about the nation’s current racial divide, and the verdict should not be considered the conclusion to such a debate. The verdict should simply be taken as an application of the facts to Florida state laws.

Despite predictions by pundits, the “stand your ground” law played a limited role in Zimmerman’s acquittal. Even if the law had played a decisive role in the case, a jury is not tasked with making determinations about the merits of a law. A defendant cannot be found guilty if his or her actions fall within the legal scope of a law — no matter how idiotic or ambiguous the law might be.

A defendant’s rights should be paramount because this protects the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” that defines our legal system. Because of a lack of sufficient evidence and state laws favorable to the defendant, Zimmerman is a free man.

This trial, and similar high-profile cases, can never answer the broader societal questions they pose. Not unless a constitutional issue is raised and the case is heard before the U.S. Supreme Court can a case determine a societal issue as a whole. This is a necessary limitation of our judicial system and one that the verdict in Zimmerman’s trial reflects.

The background of this case and what it says about the nation should be deplored, but the verdict and the process by which the jury reached their decision must be respected.

Michael Hacker is a senior political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mahacker@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @mikeincuse. 

Published on July 16, 2013 at 11:24 pm