Chauvin guilty verdict is justice by pressure

The world of extremes continues to grow, and the temperature continues to rise in the United States along cultural lines. In the most recent past events in where a decision had to be made, businesses have boarded up windows due to the perceived threat of violence in the streets.

This was evident during the 2020 Election, and most recently with the trial of Derek Chauvin. In the latter case, major public figures openly stated that there was only one correct decision, and should that decision not be made that an escalation of violence is the only action to take.

Al Sharpton has even seemingly admitted that the pressure in the streets was a driver behind the guilty verdict – the quote available at 1:53 in the below video.

I do not seek to weigh in with opinions on whether or not the verdict was correct, as the justice system will run its course, with the defence likely to appeal on the grounds that outside pressure influenced the jurors’ decisions. While I am no lawyer, it does seem extremely strange that the highest-profile trial amidst the greatest tensions the US has ever seen these past decades, did not sequester the jury, leaving them open to the potential for outside influence to affect their decision making.

With major public figures openly raising temperatures, and with the extreme threat of violence in the street in the event of an “incorrect” verdict, I can only say that this is not proper justice. Justice should be served with a clear mind, and without half an eye looking to the ramifications of the decision.

A decision made under duress is not a just decision.

A decision made under the weight of the knowledge that certain destruction of innocent businesses will occur if the “wrong” choice is made is not a just decision.

This is an easy standard to uphold and apply equally. The idea that the most organised mobs with the highest profile voices can drive out a desired result in a criminal trial is a recipe for division in the country. Justice should always be administered in a vacuum as it removes all other driving factors, or other vested interests – political or corporate. I am uncomfortable with the idea that people who have the most reach and most influence in culture can affect matters of justice, and I would hold this standard equally for all sides – and not just those with whom I politically agree.

Appeals will likely be lodged, and I’ll watch the process with interest. But if the mob did perform enough pressure to elicit a guilty verdict, then it emboldens the mob, hands them a formula on how to achieve their desires, and sends a very clear message to the population: if we disagree with you, we have the power to affect your inevitable trial.

Who determines what sides of a debate are covered?

The media will tell you that they are a main supporting pillar of any free democracy in the world. It’s a fairly solid notion, because it follows an easy logical path; people who vote need information, and a free media to circulate that information is important.

It has been mentioned in the past that covering both sides of an issue creates a problem, when wrong-headed thoughts are given equal weight as those who are qualified, or have deep experience and training. Again, there’s a clear logical progression there, in that people with actual experience and qualification should not have to face off against Bob’s Backyard Climate Investigators, whose only study methodology includes the number of times he applied sunscreen annually, and the observations he’s made through his telescope that is perpetually pointed at the sky.

This scepticism about promoting both sides of an argument came to a head this week, with NBC’s Lester Holt talking about his “Regard for Truth” while accepting the Edward R Murrow award.

It would be remiss of me to not offer a counter point to this claim – for the purposes of fairness.

The idea that audiences broadly are incapable of determining the difference between a report that contains information that is useful, versus information that has faulty methods of data gathering, is not an issue of balance but of the media’s ability to communicate and determine the voices who should be considered, while removing themselves and their interests from the story.

With the rise of the activist journalist this has only been amplified, but I cannot remove from the debate the fact that media circulation (and income) has been shrinking as people move to freely available outlets (and blogs). Shrinking income to media suddenly makes them vulnerable to corporate and political sources, as companies and political parties invest heavily in outlets, ultimately requiring the news to skew information.

Holt’s claim is naive, if not founded in doe-eyed idealism. He would seek to give rise only to prominent and worthwhile voices, but fails to realise that as the powers in the world change and skew over time, whoever gets to determine which voices rise and which voices get ignored will obtain and keep their dominance. While pointing to Orwell’s 1984 is a cliche at this point, Holt’s talk of “bothsidesism” creates the foundation of a world in where the select few and powerful can determine what ideas are in the public sphere.

This completely undermines any argument that a free and independent press can even exist.

Who gets to determine what is allowed? Sure, you think it’s fine while you’re in power, but what if you’re not?

On top of this problem is that human nature will make people curious about sides of a story that aren’t being covered, when people research further beyond what is in the newspaper. Suppressing one side of a debate does not make that side go away – it only makes people more and more curious about what is being hidden from them. One of the greatest things that happened to the song “Smack My Bitch Up” by The Prodigy was it being banned. People suddenly wondered what they were not allowed to see.

In the case of politics, people will not only investigate what is being withheld, they will wonder why it is being withheld. If you want to know the ideal conditions in which radicalism sprouts, it is this method that cultivates it.

It also shows how little trust the likes of Holt has for their audience. They don’t trust you to evaluate the facts and determine your own opinion based on your own values. They feel they must tell you how you must feel about a topic, which is why their headlines are loaded with emotive language to pre-load your mind with the “correct” opinion before you read the story.

Some would suggest that this is a tactic by a Leftist media, but this is not something with which I agree. Both sides do it. It is why an informed audience is needed.

I’ve hinted before on this blog that I am working on another project, and Holt’s speech this week seems like a pertinent time to reveal the nature of the work.

Over the past couple months I have started compiling headlines and links to news stories on issues occurring in a weekly cycle, with the view to showing both the left and right side of issues as they are presented by media outlets. I am hoping that this method of presentation will show people how both sides of a debate are covered. By effectively “baking in” the bias from each of these outlets, audiences should be able to understand the skew of facts being presented.

I am also hoping to provide my own commentary to identify what tricks I’m seeing the media play, informing people so that they can identify the tactics and analyse them themselves.

I am still building the wiki, and will circulate a link once I feel it is ready.

Despite what a media think, suppress of information does not help discourse or debate. I would trust that people can do the right things with information.

People need more information. Not less.