Today’s verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse is a disaster, but not wholly unexpected. There have been many times in history where people have gotten away with murder before, and the reality is that this has been going on for hundreds of years. It is not new, it will happen again.
But we should not be complicit or complacent. This enters in one of the most fundamental questions in political science, which is how does one determine guilt? Every system has its flaws, every system will ultimately depend on people. If you use technology, someone needed to design and implement those algorithms. They had to determine what information that algorithm is fed, and ultimately, this is a human decision, no matter how much technology we might use to determine truth. Technology can certainly help in forensics, but people choose whether to use it, and what data to build it off of.
Every country in the world has a court system. Every community of people in the world will determine a method of enforcing rules and norms, and how to enforce those rules and norms, whether it be the government of China, or a commune of 10-20 people. The scale may be different, the fundamental principles of political science, sociology, and psychology however will stay the same.
Every legal system in the world will have three sides, one part determines what rules are going to be established, one will enforce the law, and the third will determine how the system is enforced. In the United States we call these the Congress who makes the rules, the President who enforces the rules through all of the Federal agencies, and the court system enforces the rules. In some countries the executive branch is elected by the people (aka a Presidential system), in some they are directly appointed by the legislative system (aka a Parliamentary system). Both of these systems have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is inherently better than the other.
Courts have two main extreme forms, with any form of authority, be it a commune, or the United States government. One extreme is where an appointed or elected judge determines the fate of the accused, besides those judges, no one else has any say. The other extreme is where the decision is fully come to by a jury of average citizens, and the jury changes for every trial. The United States has a system where the jury makes the final decision, but the judge enforces speaking time and the rules for the trial. The judge is supposed to have limited influence on the jury in our system, though of course the judge does have influence because of their decision on how often parties are allowed to speak.
So which is better? The argument for the jury system because it is still arguably better than a politically appointed judge making the final call. The best argument for a judge making the call (assuming the judge is properly elected) is that the entire population has a say on what type of judge you have determining your fate. Its impossible to know whether a politically appointed judge or elected judge would have come to a different decision.
What it ultimately comes down to is what are the values, educations, and norms of the population the system is serving.
In a world where everyone was compassionate, educated, and clear headed, either system would work fine. In a world where laws were enforced equitably and fairly, either system would work.
But the issue in society is that corruption is a constant temptation for those who have access to power. The temptation to take a public office and turn it into personal wealth is something which is hard to eliminate fully. Better angels in positions of power certainly make a difference, but when you are in a legislative body, you can quickly gain connections which can turn into very real job opportunities. While former members of congress get a salary for the rest of their lives, and it is a high salary, it pales in comparison to the money which can be made from the connections one makes from being in a position of power. If just being able to post a video on YouTube, or sharing a blog post which has ads, power attracts views, views generate cash. Unless if people were to suddenly stop listening to former officials, especially powerful former officials, which is absolutely never going to happen because of human nature, the potential for making money after serving in high public office is always going to exist.
Corruption however is converting public wealth into private wealth. It is the looting of the masses, to turn laws which serve the public into laws which harm the public as they benefit the final decision maker. Prominent examples include Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Fugitive Slave Act, and many more.
But what we saw today with the decision regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was deeper. I don’t know what went through the minds of the jury to bring them to such an obviously wrong decision. The claim of self-defense is so obviously wrong. Someone doesn’t walk into a protest with a machine gun and shoot people who weren’t even attacking him in self-defense.
It’s very obvious when you look at the evidence that the protesters saw someone who did not agree with them running into the crowd, only looking to cause trouble. It is very obvious that Rittenhouse’s defense was lying all the way through.
He walked into a protest for police violence with a gun. He meant to cause harm. Protesters noticed his presence and acted in self-defense. If you are in a public event, and you see someone brandishing a gun, you have good reason to assume that they are up to no good. You have reason to defend yourself. Rittenhouse might have won the trial… but he knows that he was guilty.
It is even more clear that what really happened is that as people were protesting police brutality, Rittenhouse supported the murder which the police had done earlier, and it comes back to a reality that for hundreds of years in the United States people who defend Black Lives are not, and have never been, protected by the law.
It’s just a matter of time before more lone wolf Nazi terrorists go to protests regularly and shoot unarmed civilians again. This is likely to become normal, and the police will not protect the first amendment. The President refuses to criticize the decision of jurors all while giving progressives a hell of a time for standing up for his agenda. Voting rights are being lost, and there is a very high probability we will lose congress next year.
So what are our options?
- Violent revolution
- Vote in large numbers
- Protest in large numbers
Violent revolutions have a low success rate. Most violent revolutions end up with a system which is just as bad if not worse than the one which came before it. No democracy in the world was truly born from revolution, not even the United States. Building stable institutions takes time, so this is probably going to make the situation worse.
Vote in large numbers. Assuming that democracy is the least bad political system if you care about things like human rights, overall well being, and controlling equality, history tends to support that viewpoint, we are going to have a Democratic system. Democratic systems are only as good as the people you elect, and those people are only as good as the citizenry and how often those people vote. It’s time to take a deep long look at our political systems as political scientists do, and ensure that we have good people at the helm. It’s time to look at the research of social change from sociology where people have studied these very topics and have already identified solutions to the problems which plague us. When we elect leaders who say they will do something, we need to hold them accountable. We need to reform our election systems so we have more choice in the election, and make primaries meaningless. This process has already started.
Protesting in large numbers shows support for a cause. Generally they are calling for political change. Protesting + good government = change.
We need to change the systemic features of American society which uphold white supremacy these include:
- The difference in wealth held by white and black families.
- The difference in opportunities in majority white and majority black schools.
- Gerrymandering which upholds racism
- The Electoral College needs to be abolished
- Police receive vast sums of money while social services are starved
- Qualified Immunity allows police to get away with murder
And of course many more problems.
There are countless articles from countless organizations which go in detail on each of these points, and other points which I know I have missed. We need to ensure that our institutions support freedom and justice, and ensure that the people in those institutions are good people. No matter what society you are looking at, at any level, it always comes down to that. You need robust rules on how decisions are made which are strong, but ultimately we need to ensure that the stewards of our society who maintain our institutions are good people, out to do what is best for America. We have failed to do that as a country. That is why Rittenhouse is free. That is what needs to change.
References:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/28/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-kenosha-what-we-know-victims/5654579002/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/aerial-fbi-video-shows-kyle-rittenhouse-wielding-assault-rifle-moments-before-fatally-shooting-two-people