The LA riots of 1992 provides a broad perspective over which a number of issues can be drawn. The genesis of the riot was from the evidence of two police officers assaulting a black man and when taken to court, the jury gave a contrary evidence. With the evidence in place and admission of the offense, the jury still sets the police officers free without any assault charge. The outcome of the verdict resulted in riots to the extent that the stores were looted and cars burnt by angry individuals who thought that the outcome of the case was biased and a manifestation of injustice. The rioting incidence can be explained from a number of sociological perspectives.
The fact that the court had all the evidence and still gave a contrary verdict only suggest lapses in how structures of the society function (Pinard, 2011). Structural functionalism is a theory that suggests that all the structures in the society should be working together to ensure stability and coherence. The failure by the court to deliver justice despite the evidence demonstrates that the systems of the court did not operate coherently to ensure that stability was ensured. If the societal set-up of LA especially the judiciary operated based on the principles of law and taking into considerations the plight of the concerned, rioting would not have occured.
The LA riots of 1992 can be explained from the conflict theory point of view. The groups of people that rioted in LA Social showed open defiance to societal norms that are dictated by the justice system. The people did not accept the verdict of the jury in the sense that the outcome did not meet their expectations. LA has rules and regulations that define peoples behavior governed by the rule of law. When the people failed to adhere to the set rules and regulations because of perceived injustice, it resulted in a deviant activity