Demonisation, The Devil’s advocate, and Due process

Dissent, Protest, & Justice Series 005

Originally posted on Facebook 20 Nov 2021

If Rittenhouse had been a 17yr old black child, brought up by a single mother, and shot those same three white criminals attacking him, in the same circumstances, how would politicians, the media, and prosecutors have behaved?

My guess is that most politicians and celebrities who attacked him, would have acted differently. Perhaps some of those that defended him might have stayed quiet. But I can’t see any way that he would have received exactly the same treatment. And that’s the problem. Politicians play the race card, because it works to get them more votes, more power.

Promoting a 1984 style 15 minutes of hate is a way that Rich and powerful people whose policies don’t benefit the public, get to do that wizard of oz thing: don’t look at that shifty little man behind the curtain, instead know that I, the great and powerful Oz, articulate your disgust at some poor individual onto whom we can project the ills of the world.

The oz-style hate mongering uses confirmation bias to gloss over facts that don’t fit the narrative, and paint a picture of some ‘other’ group who are not like ‘ordinary people’ and should be shunned. In 1930s Germany it was Jews and homosexuals. In McCarthy’s 1950s America it was reds under the bed, in 1690s Salem it was witches, in some parts of America now it is gun owners, in other parts Moslems. But we are all made in the image of his, we are flawed., we don’t always do the right thing, and don’t always do the wrong thing: we know that about ourselves and about our friends. But when we don’t know someone first hand, we leap to accept characterisations of people (and groups) as ‘good’ or ‘bad’

When Prince Harry opted out of the firm, the country seemed to divide into his fans (who often shared his criticisms of the status quo) and his opponents (who often saw him as privileged beyond belief and spoilt). But he was the product of a broken home whose mother had high profile affairs and died Tragically early: he has never wanted for a bed to sleep in, or food, or worried his children would be taken from him, but a big part of his role from birth was ‘the spare’ and when his brother started to have children, his prospects of taking centre stage evaporated. He is not simply a bad person or a good person, but s complex human with strengths and weaknesses. The same is true of that other product of a one parent household, Rittenhouse: not to be lionised or hated.

Even the multiple times child rapist that Rittenhouse shot should not be seen as one dimensionally bad. Probably abused in childhood himself, he was probably not an easy person to like, and seems to have been a menacing threat to a long list of people before he attacked Rittenhouse. But he too was human. And not beyond redemption by the almighty. That he died before he turned his life around is terrible. Once he started attacking Rittenhouse, the issue is not that Rittenhouse was wrong to defend himself.

Becoming a good driver is said to be about acquiring the wisdom of superior judgement so one can avoid situations that can only be saved by superior car control skills. Like most 17 year olds, Rittenhouse seems to have been light on wisdom. He got himself into a sticky situation that a wiser person could probably have avoided. Criticising him for getting into the situation in the first place, is reasonable and is the way that not inky he, but others looking at the situation, can perhaps avoid repetitions. But going beyond criticism for poor judgment, and projecting hate, or thinking that the world would be more just if he were locked up for life?

Less hate in politics and public life would be a good thing. And, remember how fickle is the mob, and the politicians following it from the front: individual rights and the presumption of innocence may seem like an annoying obstacle when they stand between the might of the state and the object of public hatred. But tear down those rights and we all live only at the pleasure of the mob.

Robert Bolt put it much better than I can:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!