I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse story very much. It doesn’t particularly interest me. My casual opinion is that Rittenhouse was stupid to get involved the way he did, but that the shootings were in self defense. He’s probably liable for other charges.
But that’s not my point here. The bigger issue, IMO, is how the legal system can work when a trial “goes viral,” as they say.
The judge has been threatened. Jurors are afraid that if they come to the “wrong” verdict, there will be riots, and they might be attacked personally.
I don’t know how we solve this. We don’t want secret juries. We don’t want to tell the press what they can and can’t cover. But it’s also quite clear that these sorts of cases come with serious risk of an injustice being done because of the public attention.
Yeah, there’s no way to legitimately conduct a trial wholly in secret. But it should be possible to have better security on the identities of the jurors, at least. And I’m surprised that this whole thing is being televised; IMO it might make sense to keep archival video of a trial, but not to broadcast it in real time.
In an “ideal” world, the law would be conceived, interpreted and applied in a consistent and fair manner. If this was the case consistently, I suspect notable trials wouldn’t be the issue they’ve become. Yet, when it’s “perceived” there’s unjust bias in the interpretation and application of the law, trials tend to be notable and public reaction potentially volatile.
Albeit far from a total resolution, what “might” help is if there was a thorough review of state/federal laws to ensure they are relevant and just. As well, when high profile trials occur,“educate” the public on how the law works, relevant charges, trial procedures, jury selection/role, verdict and any other key aspects of the justice system. Also, we need a better way of investigating suspected system bias and routing it out where confirmed.
You’re right that a big problem is the perception of an unequal application of justice. Some of that perception is justified, and some is not. In some situations, I would say most of the perception of unequal treatment is not justified, because the perception is created by people with agendas who don’t care about the facts.
I don’t know what the solution is, but creating committees and boards and such to “address inequities” is almost certainly not the solution, because those things almost always start with an assumption that a certain kind of inequity exists, and then go on to find it. They also create an expectation that the inequity will be found and addressed.
There are exceptions to that. I remember an Obama-era investigation (details escape me at the time) that set out to find racial disparities, and (to many people’s disappointment) found less of it than was expected.
I’m not against investigations. I’m all for checks and balances. But they have to be positioned correctly at the outset and not driven by some agenda — or as a response to some big case that has been misrepresented to the public.
QUOTE: The bigger issue, IMO, is how the legal system can work when a trial “goes viral,” as they say…. But it’s also quite clear that these sorts of cases come with serious risk of an injustice being done because of the public attention.
The latest verdicts in the Ahmad Arbery case has me thinking about fairness and how the justice system “should” work. Of course, there should be fairness for a defendant. Yet, what about the alleged victim? What happens if a legitimate case never makes it to trial? This almost happened twice in the Arbery case. The system initially denied there was grounds to pursue the defendants…to the point there’s an investigation for a potential cover-up in the state case. Yet, once thoroughly investigated, it was found there was sufficient evidence to bring charges.
Once the case went to trial the defendants were found guilty on state charges. Fast forward, today, the the jury found the defendants guilty of additional federal charges. Yet, we learn the federal trial almost didn’t occur. Despite the pleading of the dead victim’s family, the DOJ offered a plea deal. Had it not been for the judge rejecting it, the facts of the case wouldn’t have been heard by a jury.
It makes me wonder, how many times does this happen? How often does the system keep legitimate cases from being heard? How many victims didn’t have an opportunity for a fair trial? Just to think, in the Arbery case, the victim almost didn’t have the opportunity for justice after his life was unjustly taken.