Skip to comments.What's Wrong with Victims' Rights?
Posted on 04/20/2014 8:14:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Criminals are generally despised, and cops are not universally beloved. But one participant in the criminal justice system has no enemies: victims of crime. They're the Sara Lee of American politics. Everybody doesn't like someone, but nobody doesn't like victims.
The movement to protect this group has achieved one success after another. Every state has laws specifying the rights of victims, and 33 have constitutional provisions as well.
In November, Illinois voters will decide whether to add a victims' rights section to the state constitution. Last year, a U.S. House committee held hearings on a federal constitutional amendment, which got a favorable mention in the 2012 Republican Party platform. It's hard to find anyone who opposes the idea.
It's an idea better in the abstract, though, than the concrete. You might forget that providing justice for victims is one of the central purposes of the entire criminal justice system. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging and accommodating the interests of those harmed by lawbreakers. But there are pretty narrow bounds on what more can and should be done on their behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You might forget that providing justice for victims is one of the central purposes of the entire criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system at best provides damage control for the present, deterrence for the future, and a meager measure of consolation and support for victims or their survivors.
This is not for lack of will to do more, it is for lack of ability. Justice is in the hands of God. Man simply cannot right the imbalance of criminal misdeeds.
Very well said
I read this, and honestly, it’s kind of nebulous and vague in the exact description and redress afforded a ‘victim’ with respect to courtroom procedure.
The article’s on specificity is the desire to let ‘victims’ be present throughout the entirety of a courtroom proceeding.
I have mixed feelings on this. Traditional witness procedure requires that witnesses only be present for their testimony so as not to be afforded the opportunity to bias their testimony based on testimony of other witnesses. The article supports a review/process/hearing venue to determine the efficacy of a possible Constitutional Amendment that overrides this.
Frankly, without clear stipulation about VICTIM - who they are (e.g., a co-aggrieved party unconnected with the actual crime, an interested ‘party’ such as an amicus curiae input to a proceeding) and why the hell should they be heard.
Frankly, this smacks to me of another liberal intervention into the law process and a subversion of the real intent of crime prosecution. While the acts were perpetrated on a victim, they were also perpetrated on society as a whole, and it is that society, through its laws that redresses the act. Compensation, etc. are actually a matter of civil damage in my opinion that is supplementary to a moral and just nation that enforces its laws.
IOW, through all this, I’m inclined to say NO to this proposal. I just don’t trust anyone’s motives anymore, especially when it comes to a drive to amend the constitution. Flame away
A lot more can be done for victims. Coddling of criminals leads to more victims. Nobody wants to be raped, molested, mugged, assaulted, maimed or murdered. Criminalws who commit these specific crimes should get the harshest of punishment, especially repeat offenders.
If I kill a guy and the victims family can give testimony on the impact it had on them why can’t I produce people to give testimony who are glad I did it?
I agree with you.
They better start talking about the victims of government criminals in the line of their daily duties. Because more and more people are being injured and murdered by government people every damn day here and we cannot let them get by with “officer safety” bullsh1t excuses for shoooting everything first and covering it up together later on.