A perspective can explain a divergence? And a perspective can be "clarified" better you feel, not by something so simple as saying what you really mean, but instead by attempting to prove your point with a hypothetical supposition?
Your argument that convicting a murderer for the crime of murder somehow makes the problem worse leads me to believe that you might think these sorts of tactics work, but they really don't hold up to analysis.
The only perspective being clarified here is the one of the person who thinks up the hypothetical question. We find repeated references to a black journalist raising objection to the killings of black people by the police, and somehow the apparent unfairness of this is raised as an issue that is larger than that of the deaths of these black people.
So, while that does make the perspective quite clarified, it doesn't explain any divergence. It just gives a quick glimpse into the mind of the person who posed these questions.