Giving Kyle Rittenhouse Basic Due Process Is Not a Scandal

submitted by Drewski from reason.com

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

that prosecutors will not be able to refer to the people shot by Rittenhouse as "victims

Prosecutors can refer to individuals accusing Ghislaine Maxwell of sex crimes as "victims" in the upcoming trial of Jeffrey Epstein's longtime associate, a judge ruled on Monday.

Let us not pretend these are impartial decisions. Obviously Rittenhouse deserves due process but that's not really what the article is about, it's about the terminology judges allowed that will bias a jury.

[–]wristaction 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

So, you're mad that Maxwell is being treated unfairly?

I'll help you out: The prosecution witnesses are already established as victims in the Epstein trial.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

The prosecution witnesses are already established as victims in the Epstein trial

That has not been proven in a court of law, they are still alleged victims and that language is prejudicial.

So, you're mad that Maxwell is being treated unfairly?

Am I on reddit, because that's the sort of deliberate obfuscation of the actual issue I would expect from there.

Every person is supposed to be presumed innocent and be entitled to a fair trial. Using language that identifies one side as the victim during trial is inappropriate, even if that person is a monster.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Well Epstein was already convicted once so some of the witnesses have actually already been proven victims in a court of law.

Keep up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Victims of Epstein. This trial is to prove Maxwell is complicit in that. If victims of somebody else sued you in court, would you want them to be referred to as victims? Legally that's the issue.

I'm looking at Ghislaine Maxwell trying to find any criminal proceedings where it has been proven she has any victims. I don't see any. She lost a civil case, settled a couple. You may know she's guilty but everyone knew Cosby was guilty too.

If you want a conspiracy, perhaps they're purposely doing this to allow reasons to overturn the probable conviction.

[–]GammaKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That has not been proven in a court of law, they are still alleged victims and that language is prejudicial.

Maxwell's counterargument isn't that the women were trafficked in self-defence, is it?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Afaik she's always denied the charges, said she wasn't involved.

[–]Trajan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Slightly different situations. In one we have minors, allegedly trafficked for sex. In the other we have three criminals caught on camera participating in a riot, attacking the defendant. The Rittenhouse case at the outset is not a simple case of alleged perpetrator versus victims.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah I get it, one is a monster, and one is a kid who technically didn't break the law. They're not the same, but they both deserve the same standard of fair trial. That's how our system is supposed to work.

This isn't for Ghislaine Maxwell's benefit, if you hate her and want to see her behind bars you want her trial airtight and uncontestable. I think that's been fucked up (possibly on purpose) right at the beginning. Gives her an out.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how it makes her trial any less definitive. It's standard practice to refer to the 'victim'. The Rittenhouse trial is different only because the supposed victims are clearly evidenced aggressors.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If the people Rittenhouse shot were clearly aggressors then he wouldn't have been charged at all, or the judge would have dismissed it, and there'd be no question how to refer to the people Kyle shot and/or killed. A trial is going forward to determine his guilt or innocence. His accusers are not allowed to be referred to as victims.

Ghislaine Maxwell has been accused of sex trafficking. That is also not determined yet even though she seems guilty as hell. A trial is going forward to determine her guilt or innocence. Her accusers are referred to as victims.

Later people can rightfully argue that by allowing Maxwell's accusers to be referred to as victims that the jury was unfairly biased. They can do this during the trial and have a mistrial and/or they can bring this disparity up as a reason to appeal.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the case of Rittenhouse, three people died in hotly debated circumstances. Although I believe the prosecution to be politically motivated, I can see why there would be a trial. His 'victims' are clearly shown as aggressors in video footage. Even if Rittenhouse had been yelling the worst 'yo momma' insults at them, insisting violence as they did places them as the aggressors. The charges don't make much sense, placing the judge in this position.

Regardless of Maxwell's guilt, the alleged victims do not appear to be aggressors. It's not like they attempted to rape Epstein and friends only to themselves be raped.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Given the "innocent until proven guilty" standard we have traditionally worked under within US jurisprudence, bias is supposed to favor the defendant. This change in terminology is absolutely prejudicial, I agree with you. Because it biases the jury toward the individual on trial and away from the bias of the state who wants him "made an example of", however, I'm totally in favor of it. Moreover, it actually fits the facts on the ground, which any of us who choose to can be quite aware of since the video of these events is publicly available.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not Rittenhouse I have a problem with, I agree if the jury is going to be prejudiced they should be prejudiced in favor of the defendant. It's the notion this isn't political, because we're obviously not applying the same standard of justice to everyone. We saw Cosby have his verdict rightfully overturned, we're giving Maxwell grounds for that as well right from the start.

[–]rubberbiscuit 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Elie Honig is "crazy and wrong" - and ugly as f*ck!

[–]HiddenFox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think they should be able to use the term victim with the same restrictions given to the term riotors. THEY NEED TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE! (It's amazing how that supporting evidence part gets left out when peole complain about the judge allowing the riotors term.)

I don't believe using the term victim would work given what I've read and seen so far. In fact it would more or less backfire as a weak attempt at a desperate defense to support the prosecutions claims...

Again, if you are going to call them victims you need to provide the evidence which I believe is clearly not there.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Listen to one of his lawyers spell out how his defense is being fucked.

/s/conspiracy/comments/8j4p/kyle_rittenhouse_has_legal_resources_sabotaged/

[–]Heterophobe4Life 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oppressor class degenerates are not entitled to rights.