Premise #1: We have trials for a reason. The system is deliberative because deliberation is needed. When a person faces a judge and/or jury, matters of fact and law are in contention. Some standout cases might actually be easy, but more often they look easy to someone not involved in the process.
Premise #2: Politicized trials are bad. The "good trouble" rabblerousing, the quid pro quo of "convict or we riot"...That's all an industry, and a rent-seeking industry at that. We can all see that, right?
Truth to tell I only started paying attention to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse recently. What charges--if any--I'd find him guilty of aren't something I'm firm on. And that's okay. Only the jurors need to decide this. And--this here is an important point--they need to decide it in the course of the proceedings, not come in with a preconceived conclusion. But the way many in the media have been pushing for a particular endpoint and frequently distorting facts in the process strikes me as yet another failure of common humanity.
3 comments:
I hadn't paid much attention to the Rittenhouse case either until the publicity surrounding the trial became so intense - much like the trial of Derek Chauvin last summer. That alone goes far to prove your point about politicizing the justice system. The jurors in the case were never sequestered and everyone knew who they were; the idea that they weren't supposed to be influenced by outsiders during the process was a total sham. I don't know if the same thing will happen with the current trial but it wouldn't surprise me.
Kyle Rittenhouse did exhibit bad judgement on more than one occasion, but from viewing the evidence, it does appear he acted in self defense. From what I've been able to deduce the true liability has much to do with the politicians who demonized the police. Rioters, arsonists and looters were called peaceful protestors while major chaos erupted when politicians issued stand down orders to the authorities.
The DeBoer article is a good one as are a few others we've read in recent days. The end result of the kind of hysteria promoted by the media, mainstream and social, can lead to ugly and unanticipated consequences. It's the kind of result nobody should encourage.
The Saki stories are here :)
and.. for your extra amusement - the best answer yet
to Zuck's metaverse: Icelandverse!
We've talked about this case a few times now, here and elsewhere, so I don't feel like I need to add much on that note. But I feel a need to reiterate and expand on the general point. Trials garnering huge amounts of publicity with people--and especially high-profile, influential people--taking a particular side seems like a very bad trend. There have always been miscarriages of justice, whether they benefit the defense or the prosecution. So I don't mean that verdicts are sacred. But distorting the case in public makes these miscarriages more likely, not less.
That was a very funny video about the Icelandverse. So nice to know they're out of beta and ready to launch.
Post a Comment