What the Rittenhouse & McMichaels Cases Are Really About

The criminal legal system is literally playing with our emotions.

As far as awaiting the verdict in lynching trials go, this week has been a roller coaster.

Many Americans appear somewhat relieved that the three white men who hunted and killed Ahmaud Arbery last summer were found guilty of murder a few days ago. This verdict rides in on the wave of frustration caused by the bogus acquittal of vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two Black Lives Matter protesters last summer protesting the killing of Jacob Blake.

The not-guilty verdict garnered a spectrum of responses: from no surprises here to public anger in the form of street protests. The guilty verdict has some Americans invoking the name of “justice,” though many disagree that justice is the most accurate term for those results.

But we’d do well to interrogate the assumption that the criminal legal system exists to administer “justice” at all.

The primary function of the criminal legal system appears to be social control, and in these high-profile cases, they appear to be operating as official channels of outrage management.

Outrage management, instead of justice, would probably serve as a better frame to analyze what the criminal legal system is up to.