Deference to the Defense - thoughts stemming from recent trials

[GMDino]

(11-14-2021, 08:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I should be writing up a research proposal right now, but I got to thinking about something thanks to the Rittenhouse trial and the McMichaels/Bryan trial. I'm using these trials as a launching pad for this for a reason, but know that my personal opinions on the guilty or innocence of these defendants is truly irrelevant.

Our legal system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and that someone needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in order for them to be imprisoned. I think that everyone here is familiar with this ideal and would agree to that. We also all know that the court of public opinion does not work this way.

The way this often works in trials is that things are made a little more difficult for the prosecution because the defendant, the accused, has rights related to their presumed innocence. This is, quite frankly, a very liberal/progressive ideal. So why do so many people seem to throw that out the window when it comes to someone on the wrong side of the law in their eyes? I know there is likely a psychological answer for it and it will be justified by some because they need to calm their cognitive dissonance with that rationalization, but it was just a thought I was having.

This also goes into the direction of some of the protests I have been seeing regarding race and the Rittenhouse case. At first I was baffled, because it is a white guy that shot other white guys. It seems, though, that the protests are because of how he was treated by the criminal justice system. They argue that a black person in those same circumstances would not have been afforded the same rights and protections. Honestly, I can't argue against that. They should be afforded the same rights and protections. I just don't like the idea of directing the ire towards Rittenhouse for that situation. There are people in those protests using that message to say Rittenhouse should be found guilty, and that I don't understand. Why should we drag others down to a place where they are being treated unjustly by the system?

Anyway, just some pre-coffee, Sunday morning thoughts that are resulting from a lack of focus.

I spent yesterday getting a get (used) vehicle because mine was ready to go and before I could get around to trading it in I hit a deer!  And I also have not had my coffee yet so....

To me it's the same as those who don't want student loans forgiven because "we paid off ours no matter how hard it was!"  There is a subset of people who want OTHERS to suffer because THEY suffered.  So the people who, and I agree in most cases rightfully, feel that a minority would not have been treated as well as Rittenhouse was want HIM to be treated badly versus looking for THEM to be treated better and fairly.

The other part, again to me, is that people often complain about the law even if it is applied correctly because it "feels" wrong.  Like a football fan complaining about a holding call that was actually holding but wasn't called in the exact same manner in another game or against another team.  Maybe roughing the passer where some QB's seem to get more protection than others depending on their size, age or who the official is.

There are those who want everything to "fair".  Heck, I'm one of them.  So pointing out that McMichaels and Bryan weren't even arrested until the video went public may be a good example of the "it's who you know" point of being able to get away with crimes but because three white men killed a black man those who believe that police/the justice system are harsher to blacks use the flip side of that argument to make it about how THEY would have been treated worse so why weren't those men.

And sometimes they aren't even making THAT argument but we see it that way because it's been made so much.

I just had dinner with my best friend from college and every time we talk about politics who goes on about "the media" and "their agenda" and how "they spun a story" while I try to explain that what the news channels care about is eye on them so they can sell advertising and make money a LOT more than whatever drivel they are pointing on the air I also tell him that his own personal biases are affecting how HE interprets their stories.  As proof we were talking abut Rand Paul and I said he wasn't a real doctor because of the whole board thing, something my friend didn't know anything about.  As I was showing and proof he pointed out that Paul was indeed board certified but them when they changed a testing rule he got pissy and formed his own board with his wife and father-in-law just to certify himself.  So I admitted I was wrong about the doctor thing but right that Paul was an ass...to which my friend readily agrees.  But it was MY bias that told the story in a way that had the facts right, just not all of them.  The ones that proved my point.  Even though I knew all the facts they were not relevant to the point I was making about Paul being an ass.

Long winded way of saying some people put their own spin on issues in a way that makes us want to disagree with them even when we agree on the core principle.

In the cases you started the conversation with the law/justice/police should treat everyone equally...but they don't.  

And there will be an argument made that many/most are.  But until all are there is still a problem.  And yes, I realize it will never be perfect.

(Side note:  I feel this conversation would be something that CRT would get into and that if a social studies teacher in a grade school mentioned it angry white parents would want them fired.  )