Should crime victims be forced to testify?

[dsc]

Yes this is related to the Michael Jackson case. Evidently after the first victim settled with Michael Jackson, California law was changed to force complaining witnesses to testify even if they and their families don't wish to.

With all due respect to Seinfeld we don't have Good Samaritan Laws. Nor do we have must report laws for most lay people. In the case of child abuse religous figures are still exempt from must report laws. Yet we have a defact must report law for child victims.

It seems bizarre that in most cases victims don't have to testify but here the most vulnerable of victims do. It is perfectly understandable to be upset at the idea that people get away with crimes by settling civil suits. I can understand people who feel Jackson did that being angry. But this seems like a manifestly bad and cruel idea. Hard cases often make bad law. I think this is a text book example of that happening.

[rucky]

1. Only if we provide them with counseling...

and witness protection, if needed

[JitterbugPerfume]

2. it is a cruel thing

to force a child to say such things

[rucky]

4. and the cycle continues

what do you propose?

[grannylib]

3. No I don't think they should be forced...victimized twice, all too often..

[dsc]

5. It should be noted I am not claiming there are easy answers here

but I do not blame the first family involved for doing what they did. (if Jackson was actualy guilty) While from a public policy perspective it was a rotten thing to do I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing. There aren't a lot of great choices here.

[philosophie_en_rose]

6. They don't have to testify in California.

There is a law in California that allows prosecutors to use previous statements from a victim, if the victim takes back the testimony in the future. http://www.msnbc.com/news/995878.asp?cp1=1

However, I think that the new laws that the California prosecutor discussed are really about preventing "settlements" that interfere with criminal investigations.

http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/state/20031121033408.shtml

Prosecutor says law won’t allow Jackson to pay off accuser before trial

The Associated Press
November 21, 2003

{...} "Sneddon baffled legal experts when he seemed to imply in a nationally televised news conference Wednesday morning that state law had changed since the 1993 case so that prosecutors could force minors to testify. In that case, Jackson’s alleged victim refused to testify against him after reportedly receiving a multimillion settlement from Jackson. {...} But Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to a change that allow prosecutors to intervene in a civil action and stop it, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before they decide whether to testify in a criminal trial." {...}