Joe Biden has little use for the criminal justice system

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, has answered the question by employing a similar strategy whereby she begins with important qualifying clauses, clauses that those vying for high office are all but required to hold true, and then undercuts them entirely.

“I think that there should be a thorough investigation,” Harris said. “And based on what I’ve seen, it seems that the officer should be charged.” She also said, “Everyone should be afforded due process, but here’s the thing: In America, we know these cases keep happening. And we have had too many black men in America who have been the subject of this kind of contact, and it’s gotta stop.”

Why should there be a thorough investigation if what we already know without it leads to the judgment that the officer who shot Blake should be charged? In what sense is making that determination at this stage of the game letting the judicial system work its way?

Later on Wednesday, Biden’s campaign removed the candidate from his claim by a degree. “He believes that, based on everything he has seen, charges appear warranted, but that there should be a full investigation to ensure all the facts are known first,” a campaign official said (emphasis added). “It is essential that officers in situations like this are held accountable, under due process.”

It’s good that Biden heralds due process. Still, he is running for president, and his judgment has serious influence. Suggesting that the officer should be charged before all the facts are known has the potential to interrupt that due process and to shape and reinforce all the prejudices that people have about the incident. What is he going to say if prosecutors don’t charge the officer? What is he going to say if the investigation suggests that the officer’s actions had legal justification?

Unless Biden and Harris are privy to some private information, they know what the public knows about the incident, which is that officers had been called about Blake, they knew that there was a warrant out for his arrest and that he had a knife, and he was trying to enter a vehicle despite officers’ commands. An investigation would offer other key details, and prosecutors will judge whether the officer shot Blake illegally. Yet, Biden and Harris have already made up their minds about it.

Here is the worst consequence of their presumptuousness. A great number of people in this country, perhaps millions, have little or no trust in its institutions, especially the police and other criminal justice institutions. A man was shot by police in Washington on Wednesday. Black Lives Matter DC responded shortly thereafter, saying, “DONT LET MPD CONTROL THE NARRATIVE! POLICE LIE!!!!! WE’RE ON OUR WAY.” Details about the shooting were not abundant at the time, but no matter.

That Biden and Harris both have already made commitments in the Blake case discounts the very purpose of those criminal justice institutions, and it leaves people who believe police lie with no reason at all to wait for justice to work its way. If we, who don’t have all the information, can make proper determinations about police shooting incidents without law enforcement agencies taking months to investigate, why do we need them at all?

Had Biden chosen Democratic Rep. Val Demings as his running mate, he would probably be saying something different right now. Demings said on Sunday, “I think what we have to do is all take a deep breath. If we want justice to be served, we’ve got to wait until a thorough and complete investigation is done.” She continued, “We do not want to play judge, jury, and executioner, whether we’re talking about Mr. Blake or we’re talking about the police officer.”

Believing that police overuse lethal force is a defensible position, but it is irresponsible to promote it by arguing prematurely that the shooting of Blake was not only unwarranted but illegal. Many people already have little use for the criminal justice system. Biden’s and Harris’s presumption suggests they have little use for it too.