To all those on the front lines fighting to imprison former NYC police officer Peter Liang, I wish to take this opportunity to take no position on his sentencing. The number of months he serves in jail or on probation is irrelevant to me. I have come to this view in part because the campaign to hold murderous officers accountable speaks in euphemisms and dog whistles rather than in everyday English.
They say “justice” when they mean “retribution;” “accountable” instead of “locked up;” and so on.
There can be no “justice” for Akai Gurley, because he is dead. There can be no “justice” for his daughter, except possibly removing her baby pictures from a constant loop on the evening news. For the rest of us, black, white, or brown (but especially black), “justice” ought to look like a reduction and eventual elimination of the fear that our child might be shot by the cops.
Since Liang was found guilty of negligent, and not malicious, homicide, it is unlikely that the length and caliber of his sentence will affect the decisions of other officers and won’t change police (or American) culture. We should cease referring to him as “officer” since he no longer is one.
To see some justice for others like Gurley (poor people in housing projects), we should see held accountable those responsible for the circumstances of the scene of the crime: the building manager, the police commissioner, federal HUD officials for lax enforcement of standards. And this brings me to that other euphemism, the name of the groundswell itself: Black Lives “Matter.”
Putting Liang in a concrete cell will not increase the value of the life of Akai Gurley. It will only – only – decrease the value of Peter Liang. If “justice” and “accountability” consist exclusively of retribution, I want no part in pursuing them.
Jasper Lapienski
Northampton