In a good society, real justice specifies and not basic. In criminal matters particularly, justice needs to be temporal and rooted in the realities of the instant case. Greater social issues, together with the identity of accused and victims (sex, race, religion, prestige, social or economic status, etc), just need to not be considered. This is precisely why we sequester jurors, to keep them focused on the facts instead of outside influences.
Is America truly prepared to totally and finally abandon this principle? To acquit or convict individuals based upon the inherently amorphous idea of social justice rather than the specifics of any particular case?
The criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin tests this concern. The case now sits with the jury, waiting for a verdict. Given the significant limelights given this case, one can barely discount the pressure on jurors to announce him guilty. Their privacy is tenuous at best, and who desires more difficulty in the leafy city of Kenosha?
Anybody trying to find a strong argument versus cameras in the courtroom has actually discovered it. The Rittenhouse prosecutors and defense lawyer are now unpleasant and unwanted stars of a sort. Ditto for the district judge (old white man), whose supposed pro-Trump politics are now on secondary trial. And with the nation enjoying, young Mr. Rittenhouse unknowingly serves as a proxy for a dominant political narrative. His case is now a matter of generalized justice, with massive psychological and political outcomes holding on his fate. This is disturbing and outrageous.
The Left represents Rittenhouse as an avatar for whatever wrong with Awful America. He is a gun nut, a proto– militia member, a “thin blue line” advocate, and a thus representative of MAGA Trumpism. As such, he is a bad person per se– and of course the jury ought to consider this. In the Left’s conception, a straight white Christian conservative male (assuming Rittenhouse is all those things) merely can’t have genuine political grievances. Men like him have power; the oppressed Antifa/BLM protestors do not. As such, his cause is illegitimate and his victims’ cause (seemingly protesting the cops shooting of Jacob Blake) is honorable and righteous, even if it got out of hand.
Furthermore, why would anyone– particularly a teenager– even have an “attack rifle” to start with? And why would he equip himself with such a rifle to go mix it up in a riot? Not to mention he crossed state lines (a strange point repeated ad nauseum by his critics)! By choosing to carry a weapon to the riot that evening, he positioned himself in a position where he may use it. We might even presume his intent to utilize it. As the prosecutor said during closing arguments, “When the defendant provokes the event, he loses the right to self-defense. You can not declare self-defense to a risk you produce.” Simply put, Rittenhouse was asking for difficulty and got it. Never ever mind whether at the minute of the shooting he reasonably thought his life in danger. What matters is the basic context leading up to the shooting. Bad men (Trumpers) doing bad things (utilizing weapons they should not own to protect residential or commercial property in the face of an exemplary protest) don’t get to claim victim status.
Even beyond this project of generalized malice to Rittenhouse’s actions that night, there are some who would throw him in prison for life to soothe racial stress in America. Never mind that the 3 males Rittenhouse shot were in reality white; the mainstream media certainly did not make much effort to disabuse the misconception that they were otherwise (Chris Hayes at MSNBC revealed surprise at his own misperception about this). Truths aside, self-defense aside, why not compromise one young white kid to prison if it avoids infuriating black Americans who already view the criminal justice system and as racially prejudiced against them. Why not avoid more riots and unrest? This is generalized justice writ large. Or as Dave Benner put it:
There are individuals who would literally mess up a life, lock someone in a cage, and throw away the crucial simply to advance a particular political narrative. Be wary.
— Dave Benner (@dbenner83) November 16, 2021
When it comes to police and district attorneys, have we now reached a point where rioters will be enabled to burn city blocks and even police precinct homes if their underlying cause is thought about understanding? This appeared to be the case in 2015, when in cities like Kenosha and Seattle violent protesters frequently went uncharged and even unarrested. It’s one thing for cops to retreat when outgunned or outmanned, or to make tactical choices about releasing officers to reduce residential or commercial property damage. It’s quite another for cops, supported by mayors and city councils, just to pull back and allow riots, robbery, and arson to happen undisputed since they have compassion with their criminals. When it comes to libertarians who prefer criminal justice reform, the Kenosha riots are extremely the sort of thing that turns average individuals versus lawbreakers in support of polices. And you much better believe wealthy people will find ways to use private security (or capture local government) to make certain Kenosha never ever occurs in the Hamptons or Tiburon or Brentwood.
Yes, proportional justice suggests we can’t shoot a leaving thief in the back as he absconds with our laptop. Everybody acknowledges this. However society is headed in a really bad instructions if we permit prevalent damage, arson, theft, and condition on the grounds that home can never exceed human life. Residential or commercial property is essential to sustain life, and our product environments are part and parcel of our humanity. “Mere” home is a tangible expression of human energy and past effort, not simply corporate ornaments taken from a smoldering store (“they have insurance!”). When it concerns require in defense of home, chase might be ethically doubtful however retreat is not morally needed. This is particularly true of one’s house.
As with the current statement of a federal indictment against former Trump consultant Steve Bannon, Americans increasingly pick up that prosecutors at all levels of American government often wield power as a political bludgeon. Will selective prosecution become the order of the day, rooted in identity and the perceived politics of the parties? Will regret or innocence in criminal trials increasingly depend upon broader preferable social justice results? Will we put individuals in jail or acquit them based on context instead of specifics?
Our typical law legal tradition urgently counsels versus this. So too did the late Sam Francis, who coined the term anarcho-tyrannyto describe a situation where federal government authorities selectively choose who is exempt from the guidelines and who gets the book thrown at them. We should resist this, vigorously.