At a time where the American criminal justice system is under high scrutiny and Black communities are facing extreme racism and violence, many are hoping for “justice.” But what “justice” means varies among people. Often, during a trial involving an act of racist violence, there is a widespread call for justice through the defendant’s conviction. This idea of justice, however, does not concretely change anything. One person is locked up, and perhaps they will never again do what they did. But the crime itself still occurred, and their victim did still suffer. With the rampant racism and anti-Blackness in America leading many to violence, something similar could likely happen again. This raises an important question: Can the carceral system as we know it really deliver justice? Or must we shift our focus to more systemic changes which can stop the violence at its roots?
On Aug. 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three Black Lives Matter protesters. Two of his victims, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, were killed, while the third, Gaige Grosskreutz, was wounded. He then turned himself in to the police and was arrested, although he was able to post a $2 million bail for his release from jail through crowdfunded donations. Since the shooting, Rittenhouse’s case has been incredibly divisive. Some believe he wrongfully murdered the protestors, while others believe he acted in self-defense.
Rittenhouse faced six counts of criminal charges, including attempted, reckless, and intentional homicide. He also faced a misdemeanor weapons charge, which was dismissed. Many people hoped that his trial would bring clarity, and many hoped it would bring some sort of justice. Despite this, he was found not guilty. This verdict has sparked outrage, yet perhaps this anger is misdirected.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s case was about what happened that night, and whether or not he acted illegally under Wisconsin’s laws. A crucial factor in determining the outcome of this case was Wisconsin’s self-defense law. This law states that it is lawful for a person to use violence against someone if they “reasonably believe” they are at risk of death or great bodily harm. Notably, the right to self-defense does not exclude people who sparked the violence in the first place. If they believe that they are at risk and have exhausted all options, they too have the legal right to protect themselves with possibly deadly violence. The concept of “reasonable” belief used in this law allows for significant flexibility in how it is enforced, and, even if immorally, it worked in Rittenhouse’s favor in this trial. Witnesses testified that Joseph Rosenbaum threatened to kill several people, including Rittenhouse himself. They say he chased after him and lunged for his weapon, after which Rittenhouse shot him. Based on this testimony, jurors believed that Rittenhouse was justified in feeling threatened, which led to a verdict of not guilty.
Another contested aspect of the trial was the misdemeanor weapons charge which was dismissed towards the end of the trial. Wisconsin allows adults to carry firearms openly, but this privilege is not extended to minors, which Rittenhouse was at the time of the shooting. There is one subsection of the law, however, which could be interpreted as allowing them to carry long rifles. Rittenhouse’s rifle had a 16-inch barrel, so the judge decided he was not guilty of breaking this law. Again, technicalities allowed him to avoid being convicted, although perhaps one’s common sense would have found him morally guilty.
The judge in this trial, Bruce Schroeder, also received criticism for his handling of the case. Many claim that he was biased towards Rittenhouse and protected him in ways that typical defendants do not usually face. Although his actions were seemingly inappropriate, he is not the first biased, erratic, or unobjective judge, and he will not be the last.
All of these pitfalls of the trial which allowed Rittenhouse to be found not guilty, however, are not failures of this case in particular. They are a part of Wisconsin law and the way law is practiced in America in general. To believe that a case such as this can bring justice to this type of situation would be naive. This case was not about whether what happened was right or justified, and it was not about whether Rittenhouse deserves to be free. It was purely about the facts of the case as brought before the jury and how the law applied to them. Carceral justice in America cannot make up for the deaths of Rittenhouse’s victims, nor for Jacob Blake, whose shooting they were protesting.
The American criminal system is deeply fraught with racism. Many aspects of it grew out of slavery and Black codes after the Civil War, and it continues to enforce racial hierarchies to this day. People of color, and Black people in particular, continually face abuses by police, courts, and prisons. A guilty verdict for Rittenhouse would not have solved these problems. It is true that he perhaps faced privileges that are not usually afforded to others, but a guilty verdict would still not ensure that people in the future are treated with the same respect.
Instead of continually hoping to receive justice in these situations through conviction by the courts, we should shift our focus to policy and ensure our laws reflect our morals. The morality of Wisconsin law was not being tried in the Rittenhouse case. Instead, he was tried based on the existing laws, which did not find him guilty. The only tangible impact of finding Rittenhouse guilty is that he would have been sent to prison. In a flawed carceral system, where incarceration is purely punitive rather than restorative, yet another person in prison would not do much to further the cause of the Black Lives Matter or anti-racism movements.
Real justice will come when police do not murder Black people, when Black people do not face disproportionate prison sentences by the criminal justice system, and when gun laws reflect our morals about how violence should be used. Justice must come from dismantling the system that allowed these tragedies to occur. This is not to say that conviction of murderers cannot bring a justified sense of relief and justice to victims. Given our current system, knowing that the law recognizes the harm they felt can be incredibly validating and worth celebrating. But we cannot trust the very same system that Rittenhouse’s victims were protesting to serve them justice. Justice will not come from a single case or a single conviction but will materialize when we uproot the racism deeply ingrained in America and in the criminal justice system so that things like this never even happen.
Image by Hédi Benyounes is licensed under the Unsplash License.
Interviews Editor
