We'll never abolish prisons

Everyone wants to punish someone.

The American Public Health Association has voted overwhelmingly to abolish prisons, and that really caught me by surprise. I didn’t expect these to be the kind of people who want Kyle Rittenhouse running free.

Rittenhouse, of course, is the responsible young man who decided to do his civic duty by taking a loaded gun into a riot zone, ultimately killing two people. His murder trial will start soon, and a controversial ruling by the trial judge got people riled up on Twitter this afternoon.

(Riled up even more than usual, that is. I’m baffled as to how Twitter, which has made it easier than ever to spread misinformation and round up angry mobs, escapes the scrutiny currently directed at Facebook, but that’s another rant.)

Prosecutors in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two protesters last year in Kenosha, Wis., will not be able to refer to the people he shot as "victims," a judge has ruled, while defense attorneys may be able to call them "arsonists" or "looters."

In a proceeding about the ground rules for the upcoming trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers debated whether certain language, witnesses or evidence would be allowed. The trial begins next week.

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word. And I think 'alleged victim' is a cousin to it," Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Monday, asking prosecutors to instead use the terms "complaining witness" or "decedent" to refer to those shot by Rittenhouse. (Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.)

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows," Schroeder said. "And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."

Graduates of the Twitter College of Law have rushed into action, determined that the judge is a white supremacist (Rittenhouse’s victims - I can use that word - were themselves white, but never mind) trying to rig the trial in the defendant’s favor, and the his office phone number was making the rounds before too long.

After all, people on trial for murder never get this kind of break from the judge, right? Actually, um, no. According to this must-read thread from a criminal defence lawyer in Louisiana, there’s really nothing unusual about it:

Public Defendering, Esq. @fodderyfodder

This is a routine defense request that pros not be allowed to refer to victims as such bc it alleges a crime has been committed prior to the determination that a crime has been committed.

AJ+ @ajplus

The judge in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial says lawyers cannot call the 2 people he killed "victims." Rittenhouse killed 2 people and wounded another with an AR-15 style weapon. The judge says "victim" is too "loaded" but will let lawyers call them "rioters, looters or arsonists." https://t.co/KqK73Z3ytN

The other aspect of this story that’s gone viral - that the defence team is supposedly allowed to refer to the deceased as “looters” and “rioters” - is being misrepresented as well:

And, as it turns out, this particular judge has a habit of making this ruling in murder cases:

Owen Barcala @obarcala

@JimSwiftDC According to this article, that's the judge's standard practice in all criminal cases kenoshanews.com/news/local/cri…