By David M. Greenwald
Everyday Injustice
The criminal justice system is not broken many say, it is working just as it was designed to work. And for many, that means two system of justice.
As Alameda Public Defender Brendon Woods tweeted, “Today is just a reminder – there are two systems of justice. Two system of justice.”
The Legal Aid Society of NYC tweeted, “The Rittenhouse case is a devastating reminder of the power and privilege that comes with whiteness. Black and Latinx people, including many of the New Yorkers we represent, fare worse for accusations of far less severity and are never treated with such humanity.”
As Justin Blake—the uncle of Jacob Blake—put it, “I don’t know how they came to the conclusion that he’s innocent, but this is why African Americans say the whole damn system is guilty.”
The show-stopping moment in the movie adaptation of John Grisham’s “Time To Kill” has the lawyer defending a Black man accused of killing two men who brutally raped his ten-year-old daughter, running through the litany of atrocities these men did to the man’s daughter. And of that description of her broken, beaten body, he asked the white southern jury to “imagine she’s white.”
In the idealized world of John Grisham and Hollywood this is enough to momentarily snap the jury out of their pre-programed prejudices and see the humanity of the situation and the reality of a father defending his daughter.
Why is this inevitably always about race, some of our commenters are bound to ask yet again—because you cannot tell the story of the criminal legal system without talking about race.
The story is one of unequal justice, and race underlies that historic inequality. That’s what the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict is about—even if you happen to believe that the jury, and thus the system, got it right.
As Bryan Stevenson put it, it’s better to be rich and guilty, than innocent and poor.
Perhaps to that we can add white.
People of color that I know have made the point throughout that if Kyle Rittenhouse were Black, had he carry a loaded weapon into a protest of white people, he probably would not have lived to have been tried, even if he managed to fire off shots and kill people in the crowd attempting to confront him as Rittenhouse did.
If Black Kyle Rittenhouse had shown up at an anti-vax rally, with a weapon and the crowd chased him down and he shot two people dead, what would have happened? One, he probably would have been shot dead by police or bystanders and, two, he likely would have been portrayed as a thug and convicted in front of an all-white jury.
Kyle Rittenhouse benefitted of course, not just by race, but the fact that he was a cute little kid with a baby face rather than a bearded and long-haired proud boy-looking person.
But the advantage here is not just appearance and unconscious or conscious bias.
A few years ago I remember reading Anthony Ray Hinton’s book, The Sun Does Shine—he spent more than 30 years on death row before being exonerated by Bryan Stevenson.
Hinton wrote, when he talked to his attorney for the first time, his attorney said, “Yeah, I’ll look into it. They’re only paying me $1,000 for this, and hell, I eat $1,000 for breakfast.”
“He laughed, but it wasn’t funny.”
That’s how you get the death penalty—a defense attorney who doesn’t have or fails to use the resources to do a thorough investigation, to put on an affirmative defense, to counter the prosecution’s defense.
As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 2001, “I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial. People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.”
And who doesn’t get represented at trial? People of Color. The poor.
From the National Exoneration Registry: “African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in ‘group exonerations.’”
Kyle Rittenhouse benefitted because he was represented by an attorney that offered an affirmative defense, and was not an overworked attorney with 100 other clients to defend at the moment, attempting to scrap together meager resources for a critical expert.
In the case of Hinton, for example, his attorney used $500 to hire an expert on forensics to show that the bullet that killed the person could not have been fired from Hinton’s old and probably inoperative gun that had never been fired.
The person they hired was blind in one eye and easily discredited by the prosecutor. We later found out that the judge probably would have extended the $1000 for experts and investigators if requested by the defense—the defense never did petition the court.
Hinton lost 37 years to imprisonment largely because of ineffective assistance of counsel.
One of our readers told me, citing Jonathan Capehart, that this was not unequal justice but unequal laws.
He argued that Wisconsin’s laws got Rittenhouse off, not its system of justice.
There is a large point to that. As we noted yesterday, self-defense laws and right to carry made a lot of what Rittenhouse did legal under the law.
But they miss a fundamental point—without access to competent and vigorous defense, Rittenhouse cannot even access those laws.
Without a system that allows a basically all-white jury, Rittenhouse as a white person perhaps doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt from the jury.
A Black man in Rittenhouse’s position goes down every which way. Rittenhouse benefitted by the laws, but he also benefitted heavily from white privilege.
What if the Vanguard didn’t make everything about race?
See paragraph 7
That explains nothing, this case about Rittenhouse has nothing to do with race. I feel you need to stop with this kind of stuff. It doesn’t help.
It was a Black Lives Matter protest. A white 17-year-old got a gun, loaded it, and was walking around there to “protect” propety.
But sure, Keith, it “has nothing to do with race.”
It missed the entire point of the piece to say this has nothing to do with race. The entire point was that Rittenhouse was treated differently from how a Black man would have been in his position.
You don’t know that. In fact in these times I’d bet you that today a black man wouldn’t have even been charged in the exact same circumstances. Rittenhouse was only charged because of pressure from the left. WesC showed a case where a black man who was charged for murder who got off on self defense.
We don’t know for certain at the individual level. But we have data that shows that Blacks are more likely to get charged, tried, convicted, and face more severe punishment even when controlling for key variables such as facts of the crime and post criminal record.
https://www.kptv.com/news/african-american-business-owners-hit-with-vandalism-during-protests-calling-for-end-to-violence/article_b8c65f90-a473-11ea-97f1-4712d676b0f6.html
This incident was about a white person who shot three white men who attacked him. Not about race.
Why was he there?
To kill white people.
He was there because portions of the town were being destroyed by the riots. Buildings were being burned and destroyed. People on “both sides” were carrying weapons.
In my view, he didn’t go there to harm people. If that was his goal, he could have easily done so from afar. He responded violently only toward those who attacked him.
All of that said, I don’t think it was a good idea for a 17 year old to be there with a semi automatic weapon. But violent, destructive protests rightfully draw a response from people who wish to protect property. It’s a volatile situation that we, as a country, should work to avoid.
In my view, protestors (or counter protestors) should not be carrying weapons. We don’t allow weapons in crowded stadiums and sporting events, and weapons shouldn’t be allowed in venues like protests. Protestors also shouldn’t destroy property, and when they do, they could also be considered to have “incited” a response, similar to the way the self defense law works.
A reasoned response considering specifics, conditions and nuance, along with measured suggestions for change? What is this comment doing here?
What a bunch of “malarkey”, on several levels.
Also, a straight-out racist comment against white people on a jury.
By the way, you don’t have to go very far to find people with (what appears to be) assault rifles on I-80. Used as a club, in this case from last night:
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11/20/blocked-lanes-on-eastbound-i-80-near-richards-blvd-in-davis/
Really poor reporting by CBS-13 in Sacramento: they didn’t state the ‘color’ of the people involved in the incident on I-80 😐
Ooooooo, wheeeeeee . . . what’s up with dat? . . . what’s up with dat?
. . . and here’s the link for the above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPNMsbQ5GMY
I used my fingers to count today, so that’s my limit. Now I’ll go find something else to do today. Like . . . perhaps . . . comment on another Vanguard ‘article’.
As they used to say in the early 1990’s Nescafe Gold Commercials:
“Perhaps . . . ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8kZsHy_Ng
By the way, this statistic has ZERO meaning (even if it’s accurate, which I would not assume).
If (for example) African Americans commit a greater share of crime (compared to their overall population size), they would represent a larger share of the prison population (and therefore a larger percentage of those exonerated).
Meanwhile prior to the age of Woke enlightenment…..
A jury found Stephen Jamal Spencer (a black male) not guilty of murder in a racially charged slaying outside a bar in Pittston, about 6 miles southwest of Scranton Pennsylvania.
Spencer shot Christopher Williams (a white male) outside a bar after a night of racial taunting by a bunch of white bar goers. The group of taunting white bar goers followed Spencer outside the bar and aggressively moved toward him while shouting “we’re gonna get you (racial slur)” Spencer had arrived at the bar with his black neighbor, Henry Gift. As they were leaving Gift was attacked from behind by 2 people. Gift was also a friend of Williams.
Spencer has no criminal history and has a valid concealed carry permit. Spencer’s defense attorney stated spencer “was terrified and did what he had to do in those few seconds” Spencer fired one shot and stopped when the threat stopped. Prosecutor argued Spencer had a opportunity and a duty to retreat rather than to pull his gun., and that shooting an unarmed man on the street is not self defense when you can retreat.
They jury took just a few hours of deliberation to find Spencer not guilty, clearing him of any criminal wrong doing.
Thank you for sharing that… seriously…
Unfortunately, that was not the case in Kenosha… and the facts and context were different…
Opportunity yes… “duty” is squishier… I believe it would be a moral/spiritual duty, but not likely a ‘legal’ one… don’t know if WI or PA is a “you have a right to ‘stand your ground’ state… like FL, which was a prime factor in the case of Zimmerman shooting Martin. I understand the ‘right’, but most times, I’d question the ‘wisdom’… many times, it can be the right thing…
Ironic… a Black Lives Matter protest (associated, but not all of what was going on with the protests, where an obvious difference in race was arguably related to a ‘death by police’)… someone who lived 20 + miles away ‘intervened’… with an automatic rifle… two killed, one paralyzed… in the Kenosha case, the history of the first victim was definitely unknown to the shooter, but subsequent social media was implying that ‘his life didn’t matter‘ (or, ‘he needed killing’), nor did the other folk’s who were shot.
Yet, if you say “all lives matter” you get branded as an insensitive, ill-informed, likely-racist, person…
Whatever…
Thanks WesC, if we apply the same reasoning as some of the liberals on here Spencer should be guilty because he brought a gun to a bar regardless of the circumstances.
“Hey – do you see that guy over there, legally-carrying a semi-automatic weapon (but not pointing it at anyone, or even giving any indication at all that he would do so)? I say we jump him and take it (and probably beat the crap out of him – as I assume that he’s also a racist), and let the DA charge him after we’re dead”.
His buddy’s response: “Sounds good to me. Let’s go!”
Just happened-across this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kyle-rittenhouse-i-support-the-blm-movement/ar-AAQYo6I?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
And next week, he and David will be “co-authoring” articles together, I guess. 🙂
Ranks right up there with… some of my best friends are Black.
Not seeing the connection with my comment.
In any case, your position might be better-described as “I select some of my best friends because they are black (or at least, not white or Asian).”
But even that wouldn’t be entirely accurate (or complete), since they also have to be activists. (Actually, that’s probably your primary qualification.)
One of the classic responses against being racist is to say, I’m not racist, some of my best friends are Black. I’m playing off that.
Oh – in regard to Kyle’s comment, not mine.
Correct
Accidentally ran into an interesting article:
John M. Crisp: Kyle Rittenhouse is also a victim (msn.com)
Don’t go by the title… suggested read… haven’t fully processed/grokked it yet, but it might explain underlying issues, beyond racism, beyond politics… beyond discussions to date… might go to part an underpinning of Columbine, Aurora theater, Sandy Hook, etc., etc., etc.
Not a justification of, nor necessarily the prime issue, but might be a ‘piece of the puzzle’… as I opine, it is a good read for thought, not necessarily conclusions…
Thought I should share…
Ironically Rittenhouse himself makes the point I was making that some here were rejecting: “If the prosecutors did this to me, imagine what they could’ve done to a person of color who maybe doesn’t have the resources I do, or it’s not widely publicized like my case.” He’s right on this point.
And that comment from Rittenhouse doesn’t “Rank right up there with… some of my best friends are Black”?
Why would it?
Oh I don’t know, maybe your reply to another comment came to mind?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kyle-rittenhouse-i-support-the-blm-movement/ar-AAQYo6I?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
And next week, he and David will be “co-authoring” articles together, I guess.
Ignore Commenter
ReplyReport comment ↓
David Greenwald Post authorNovember 22, 2021 at 3:19 am
Ranks right up there with… some of my best friends are Black.
The two comments are not similar.
Actually they are very similar.
One is a claim about his own views which is not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, the other is a comment about the system, which is fairly accurate. It is interesting that he didn’t decide to go hard right after getting acquitted and venerated by the right.
Ummm, to me that sounds like a complaint about the system.
But twist it as you must, I’m done here.
Your first comment was why does the Vanguard make everything about race. Second was claiming this case has nothing to do with race. My column was that Kyle benefitted from white privilege. Kyle’s comment acknowledged that he benefited from white privilege. Do you disagree with Kyle here?
Now here’s something we all should be concerned about, was this in response to the Rittenhouse verdict:
You haven’t kept up much about the facts of the Waukesha tragedy, and the person they have in custody…
Unless someone is referring to a ‘revolution’ of MH, emotionally disturbed folk.