Do victim's rights advocates drive anyone else bonkers?

[JackDragna]

I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of crime and their families. What disturbs me, however, is how many people out there have turned themselves into self-appointed crusaders against "criminals," who inevitably call for the relaxing of all kinds of protections for those accused of crime. I hear people suggest things now I would have considered beyond the pale not so long ago: the suspension of Miranda rights, widely expanded police powers to delve into people's private lives, excuses for extremely zealous searches and seizures.

Society used to idolize lawyers who stood up for the wrongly accused, who did their best to ensure justice for all. Now all anyone wants to do is toss people to the lions before trials even begin in an attempt to bring "closure" to the families. What kind of closure (if such a thing exists) can families get if the wrong people are jailed? Is society any safer if average citizens sacrifice what makes this country worth living in for some sense of security?

Alas, we never hear the voices of moderation on television. It is as if no one considers why protections for the accused existed in the first place. Victim's rights advocates march arm-in-arm with every other kind of right-winger marching all over the Constitution.

[RPM]

1. If the recent discussions here about vigilantism are any indicator:

No - victims rights are all the rage, even if it means the whole neighborhood can wail on a suspect unlawfully past the point required to end the crime.

Even among progressives, interest in the rights of the accused seems to be dead.

[JackDragna]

2. That's what drives me nuts.

I hate people like Nancy Grace, who seem to be on some self-important mission to prove to everyone just how bad all these criminals are in the world. I consider the protection of the accused to be one of the benchmarks of a civilized society.

[CTLawGuy]

11. I can't stand Nancy Grace

she invariably thinks everyone accused of a crime is guilty and gets mad if they are not found guilty.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Victim's rights is code for "revenge" and mob justice...

...rather than rule of law.

[bobbieinok]

4. been a campaign for ca 20 years....the whole 9-11 aftermath has

from one perspective been the culmination of 'victims rights vigilantism

anyone accused of a crime that seriously hurts or kills someone is often considered to be guilty and deserving of the most extreme punishment

[Grillydad]

5. Amen, Brother

I tell lots of people that when someone uses a heinous crime to water down the rights of everyone accused they aren't getting the next heinous crime. They're attacking the little transgression (the college student with a joint, driving without a license, kids toilet papering the neighborhood). Those people always complain "ok, I screwed up, but do I have to pay with my drivers license and incarceration." But because there is no voice for moderation and common sense, only the hue and cry of "tough on crime," people become distrustful of the system. Unfortunately, the only thing that holds the system together is faith that the system will end in the right place. If we do not believe that our rule of law is fair there is nothing that makes us adhere to it. If everyone just decided to not follow court orders, there is not enough deputies, bailiffs and enforcers to make a difference.

The system should work punish the worst offenders and offences but it should also recognize that good people make mistakes and do stupid things. Frankly, it's a Republican attitude to judge everyone by their worst act and insist that forgiveness is a weakness.

Usually our system does work. But as it gets watered down, if it is perceived as unfair, it will be no better than the old soviet trials that take an hour or so and then we take 'em out back and charge the family for the bullet.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.

[Nite Owl]

6. Yes, they do

they seem more interested in revenge not justice. They want 'somebody' to be punished and they often don't seem to care if it is truly the person that committed the crime against their loved one, anyone will do. Their feelings seem so misplaced because while they may get their revenge the one who actually did the crime is still out there.

[oscar111]

7. End street crime with Jobs for All

Tell the ones who are against criminals,

the best way to end crime is

Jobs for All

see my sig for site.. Galbraith of harvard is advisor.

Job shortage is now 14 million.

the hungry will come crawling in your window looking for cash for food.

[Jeebo]

8. I have a BIG problem with them wanting input in trials...

,,,because it always has been my understanding that it is a part of our system of justice that the defendant is entitled to an IMPARTIAL judge and jury. I always feel that it flies in the face of that noble principle when anybody who is obviously not impartial participates in any way in either the guilt phase or the sentencing phase of a trial (other than testifying in the guilt phase, of course). The victims obviously are not capable of being fair and impartial. They will not be inclined to consider any exculpatory or extenuating circumstances in the guilt or innocence phase, and they will resist any modicum of mercy or understanding for the defendant in the sentencing phase. The police and courts are not there for the purpose of helping victims wreak revenge on criminals, they are there for the purpose of protecting society from people who have shown that they cannot be allowed to run around loose.

Ron

[mongo]

10. As far as I know

During a sentencing, the only imput allowed by a victim or their family is to testify again on how the crime has impacted them. Do you think that the victim should not be given the opportunity to testify before a jury during a sentencing phase?

The defense is also allowed to testify, present mitigating factors, expert witness, etc.

It is not the vicims role to be fair and impartial. That is the role of the jury, and they should be able to hear arguments from both sides during the sentancing phase - and that includes how the crime has impacted the victim and their family.

[RPM]

12. True - but legally the criminal action has nothing to do with the family

It is the state's action against the accused. As such it would be arguably more germane to the proceeding to exclude the opinions of non-named parties from testimony.

They should however be allowed to file some sort of analog to an amicus brief.

[mongo]

13. The legality of the crime may not have anything to do with the family

but the punishment should fit the crime - and one factor in that crime is how it affects the family of the victim.

Both sides are allowed to present testimony during the sentencing phase. That includes a defendant changing his story and begging for mercy or maintaining his innocence. It include presenting any mitigating factors for the defense, such as drug abuse, mental illness, family history giving predisposition to violence, etc.

Can't the defense call on the mother of the defenedent to also beg for mercy for her kid?

[Jeebo]

14. Mongo, let me try to clarify my points...

You have some good points and I do not take issue with them. I stand by my assertion in my original post:

"The police and courts are not there for the purpose of helping victims wreak revenge on criminals, they are there for the purpose of protecting society from people who have shown that they cannot be allowed to run around loose."

I believe your points addressed, and agreed with, the second part of that sentence ("...for the purpose of protecting society..."). But too often, in watching Court TV and hearing and reading victims' rights statements on their web sites and elsewhere, I perceive that victims' rights organizations are serving the goals of the first part of that sentence ("...for the purpose of helping victims wreak revenge..."). And that's where I have a big problem with them. Because I don't believe that is in line with the ideals or goals or justification for the existence of the criminal justice system.

Ron

P.S. -- I went to your web site. If I ever visit Zanesville, I will visit your store and buy something from you.

[mongo]

15. Agreed

And if you every do come to Zanesville - please stop by - you don't have to buy anything, I just like to chat. :hi:

[mongo]

9. I think you bring up some valid points

and I think that when the issue of certain crimes are raised on DU, reason gets thrown out the window in favor of vigilante-ism.

But there are some important issues regarding victims rights that need to be addressed:

- Stronger enforcement of restraining orders. Restraining orders are often ignored by the police.

- Protection from criminal and civil suits by perpetrators and their families who are injured or killed by a would be victim who fights back.

We should never give up our civil liberties for any measure of security, but statements like this:

Victim's rights advocates march arm-in-arm with every other kind of right-winger marching all over the Constitution.

is kinda like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Just my .02

[Grillydad]

17. frequently , it's the difference between practice and intent

I agree that victim's rights can be supported by effective enforcement of protectionorders, but htere also needs to be reason in the granting of such orders. Too often the courts decide to err on the side of keeping feuding people separate. The problem is the Court only has jurisdiction to order one of the parties. Therefore, it gets used as a weapon in a personal feud that the state shouldn't be involved in.

The police are stuck with a lot of orders where the spirit of the protection order is not upheld or the parties recognize it as a part of their individual battle and give it little significance (they then get back together or try to work things out extra-judicially). That's why the police who don't know whether this is a serious situation or one described above are less than enthusiastic about enforcement.

[shance]

16. No, but murder, rape and annihilation by power abusers against innocent

"victims" bothers me very much. It is the most corrosive evil on this planet.

Perhaps you are implying victims who are not really 'victims' but offenders in their own right per se. Yes, those individuals are both highly manipulative and very crafty and conversely maintain the maturity of an infant. Its an amazing contradiction, but many of the leaders we see promoting all the abuses fit into this category. They are essentially reverse bullies within themselves. If you confront a bullying "Republican" say, like Orrin Hatch or someone similar to him, you will immediately see him melt into a pathetic victim role. He has done it time and time again with his histrionic, melodramatic outbursts, and often rather sadistically laced statements. It's really all an act and a charade. That is why it confuses and baffles so many of us. We are shocked and almost in a state of denial to see someone acting so outrageously infantile and pathetic. That is why we often deny it and we refuse to see it for what it is at often our own peril. When we deny their insanity, we allow their innappropriate behavior to further become accepted in governmental roles and in society. Individuals like this seem to have little if any 'soul' or substance really, certainly no sense of conscience, honesty, ethics, self respect or decency.

I think with this post, you tread a thin line of potentially demonizing the word 'victim' and victims themselves.

Rest assured there are many victims across the globe. Alot of times we would rather turn a blind eye and create an excuse or justification within our mind that explains the cruelty that at times is in front of our eyes. To deny it, is our own crime which we have all done from time to time, however it is still complicity when we allow ourselves to respond in such a manner. We have to help those that need help. We would want the same response for ourselves if our lives and/our safety and/or even our name was being jeopardized. The ones who have engaged in victimizing others in the media and in this Administration have of course been the ones who have been the offenders of the victims themselves.

[JackDragna]

18. That's not what I meant at all..

By victim, I mean the victims of crime. This isn't an attempt to shelter those guilty of crimes against humanity in general. An odd accusation, you make. :)