The Judicial System Isn't About Making You Happy
Court cases may not be decided the way you want them to be, but the evidence and the law are what must guide a decision.
In my first newspaper reporting job, there was a trial in which a man was charged with child abuse resulting in death, regarding the death of his baby. His girlfriend was also charged, was set for a separate trial, but testified in the man's trial.
Twice they checked on the baby, who was sick, and they cleaned him up. Then, when they later checked on him, they discovered the baby wasn't breathing. The autopsy showed bruising on the baby, thus leading to the charges.
I wasn't there for every moment of the trial, but I was there for enough of it to know that multiple witnesses testified that the man had been at work for most of the day the baby died. Other testimony had the man and his wife being in their presence most of the day.
The jury ultimately found the man not guilty. I interviewed the jury foreman afterward, who said the timeline of events and testimony presented to them meant they could not pinpoint a time in which the man could have committed an action that led to the baby's death.
The charges against the woman were later dismissed by the district attorney.
If this had been a high-profile case, there would no doubt be a contingent of people who would proclaim the man and his girlfriend to be "baby killers" or some other name that signals that the only thing they will accept is a guilty conviction.
Then I will tell you that the man was black, and that piece of information would mean another contingent complaining about how the judicial system is stacked so much against black people, that he shouldn't have been charged in the first place.
In other words, these contingents would focus more on what makes them happy or supports their cause, rather than focusing on what actually happened and determining, from there, if a conviction must be returned (and in this case, the jury determined it couldn’t).
Later, when I was working another job, I learned about a case in the state in which a man was facing charges of vehicular homicide after his car struck a car with multiple teenagers, who all died at the scene.
I didn't cover the case, but read up on the details, in which evidence was presented that the car the teenagers occupied was driving on the wrong side of the road and at excessive speeds.
The man was found not guilty, prompting an outcry in comments on stories about how the jury can declare a drunk driver not guilty. They didn't think about the possibility that a teenager driving the other car was engaged in reckless driving and, thus, was the one that caused the crash.
It's true the man was driving drunk, but that did not automatically make him guilty of vehicular homicide. Being guilty of one violation of the law does not mean you are guilty of another violation.
While I don’t remember the ethnicity of the accused, if this had been a high-profile case today, I have no doubt plenty of people would bring it up.
This brings me to the Kyle Rittehouse trial, in which the evidence presented and the action that took place are not what's being discussed by the pundits. They're more focused on the who, which leads to not focusing on what justice is all about, and instead focuses on pushing a narrative that appeals to the audience the pundit wants to attract.
While I agree, to a point, that Rittenhouse wound up in a situation for which he wasn't prepared to handle, that does not make him automatically guilty of the charges against him. It is true that he possessed a firearm he was not allowed to possess under Wisconsin law, but that does not equal him being guilty of charges beyond illegal possession of a firearm.
(UPDATE 11/15/21: Before closing statements were made Monday, the judge announced the illegal possession of a firearm charge was dismissed because Rittenhouse was, in fact, allowed to carry the firearm in question. Relevant tweet:)
Nor is the fact that the two men who died, and the third who was injured, were convicted felons mean that Rittenhouse should immediately be exonerated. And the fact the men showed up among people who said they were protesting a social justice cause, doesn't automatically mean Rittenhouse must be convicted. (Rittenhouse and the three other men were all white, though the talking points on that have mostly been focused on Rittenhouse.)
The only things that matter are the evidence at hand, the actions that took place and what the law says about the situation. If the relevant evidence and actions show a violation took place, you convict. If they don't, your verdict should be "not guilty."
It certainly hasn't helped that multiple media members and pundits are spinning or excluding facts of the case to push a narrative. But regardless of what the media does, there will still be people who want decisions rendered in criminal cases that make them happy that justice was done.
Again, not everyone who serves in the judicial system does it well, but if we want to improve it, we need to remove people whose conduct doesn't serve justice. If that means you remove somebody who supports a particular cause you like, it still needs to happen.
Justice isn't about appeasing the masses or scoring points for your side. It's about considering the situation, the evidence presented, what the law says about it all, and making a decision from there. Sometimes the decision reached may not make you happy, but that's not the point of the judicial system.
On Another Note…
The Rittenhouse trial coverage reminded me about an episode of the old Max Headroom series from the 1980s, in which one episode, “The Academy,” touches upon the media covering court cases for entertainment purposes. Read my review of the episode.