Didn't criminal justice reformers want the jury to give Rittenhouse the benefit of the doubt?

A sitting U.S. representative judged Rittenhouse guilty before hearing all the testimony, then advocated exactly the kind of excessively long sentences for violent offenders that have become the driving force behind mass incarceration. As a moral matter, Jeffries had a better argument in June 2020, when he was urging America to “End. Mass. Incarceration.” While prison is sometimes necessary, the American justice system imprisons people too long and too enthusiastically.

But what really dismays is the political malpractice. For people serious about criminal justice reform, events of the past year have offered a golden opportunity. With a law-and-order conservative such as Rittenhouse in the dock, and “lock her up” Trump supporters suffering the indignities of the D.C. jail, the left could have turned to the right and said: “You see? Prison conditions in this country are inhumane. Prosecutors have too much power, overreach and wreck lives. Let’s come together to fix this.”

Instead, even as the right waxed indignant about an abusive system, the left wanted vengeance. It wasn’t just the “lock him up” language that elevated one now-18-year-old defendant into a threat to the republic; they also attacked decades of hard-won defendant rights. As the prosecutor’s case sagged, Judge Bruce E. Schroeder was excoriated for making any ruling that constrained the prosecution, even though his rulings were pretty standard.