|
16 Apr 02 - 10:48 PM (#691730) Subject: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR There is a movement to amend the U. S. Constitution to allow recognition of Victim's Right's relative to crimes committed against them. There are multiple safeguards for those accused of crimes, but none for victims. How do you feel about the suggestion to amend the constitution? I favor it. DougR |
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:18 PM (#691755) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Stephen L. Rich The movement for victims' rights would appear to have taken on enough of a life of its own that a constitutional amendment may not be needed. Start with victims' statements at sentencing and work from there. Courts all over the U.S. are shifting gear to acknowledge the right of victims. By the time such an amendment comes to a vote the point may be moot. Sometimes customs and social pressure hold a good deal more weight that that of law. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:20 PM (#691758) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Stephen L. Rich Sorry for the typo. that should have read "than that of law". |
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:33 PM (#691766) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Troll If you want victims rights today, an amendment is the only sure way to go. I recall all too vividly the days of -for want of a better term- "criminals rights" when the victim was all but ignored and it seemed sometimes blamed -"If he hadn't had all that money that he earned on his job, my client would never have robbed him." The pendulum could just as easily swing again. People who get their news from "Opra" and People Magazine, rarely make critical judgements. troll |
|
17 Apr 02 - 12:05 AM (#691785) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: GUEST,mg I am all for victims' rights but I do not understand why it has to be a constitutional amendment. How about just a law? |
|
17 Apr 02 - 12:11 AM (#691787) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR Evidently, GuestMg, an amendment to the Constitution is necessary. I do not know why. Perhaps Larry, or some of the other lawyers on the forum can tell us why. DougR |
|
17 Apr 02 - 12:56 AM (#691804) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Sorcha Don't get me started.............. (the cop's wife who has seen too many victims victimized by the system) |
|
17 Apr 02 - 03:17 AM (#691843) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR So, Sorcha, does that put you on the side of those who favor an amendment, or against? |
|
17 Apr 02 - 07:58 AM (#691964) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: GUEST In Canada the criminal IS "the Victim", especially if they are 18 or under. There is always some valid reason for having committed a crime...[I was bored, I am ADD, Low self esteem, my grandmother drinks, I hate schools ad nauseum]. We call this the Young Offenders Act, and that is exactly what it has become. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 08:12 AM (#691972) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Nigel Parsons Victim's rights good? Bad?: Whatever!, as long as they come before perpetrators rights! |
|
17 Apr 02 - 08:50 AM (#691988) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Mrrzy The reason for a constitutional amendment, according to somebody on NPR, is that it gets more broadly applied than does a statute. I personally am in favor of switching back to the compensation form of justice rather than the retribution one - the perp should have to make it right with the vic, not have to go to jail and get fed and clothed and housed and taught crime at the graduate school level. But I grew up in the Third World, where justice is still more based on reparation than retribution, so that feels more normal to me. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 09:32 AM (#692037) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Wolfgang You all seem to agree (and I don't dissent basically) and everyone including me has at least one bad case in mind in which the victim was victimised again by a brutal questioning in court. But the very title of this thread and Nigel's post makes me wanting to disagree a little and to tell you why this is not always such an easy question. In some cases, it is not clear at the onset whether there is a victim at all (when the defendant claims false accusation). Another example: In a famous and very controversial case in Germany it was not clear who the co-victim was. Two children had been murdered and from the circumstances it was clear that definitely either the father or the mother was the acting alone murderer. They both accused each other. The dead children were victims, but also the innocent of the two spouses. The police decided on the evidence to prosecute the mother with the father being the coopted accuser at the court. Her only defense was to claim that the father was the murderer and her lawyer's task was to question him as hard as possible and to dig into weak parts of his character. Terrible and additional hurt, if he was the co-victim, only option for the defense if he was the murderer. (BTW, she was sentenced claiming her innocence, he became insane) Would victim's rights have made her only line of defense impossible? The very name 'victim's rights' could be wrong in cases in which the question who was victim and if there was a victim at all has not been answered before the sentence. I guess you would like a concept like victim's rights to work also before the sentence. Then you either have to exclude cases in which the victim status is a matter of dispute or you have to use another name. In most cases, however, the question who was the victim is uncontroversial, but who was the perpetrator is. If the prosecution didn't think that there was a good chance that the defendant was the perpetrator they wouldn't start the case, but they can be wrong and have been. So if you mean, Nigel, that victim's rights have to come before perpetrators rights I'm with you. If you mean before defendant's rights I'm less sure. We should never forget that the defendant may not be the perpetrator and we should remember that the explicit rights of a defendant are a good legacy from the French and other revolutions at that time. After the case has been finished, there is no dissens from me at all. Before or during the court case, I'd like to look at the details of a victims' right law/amendment before I agree. Wolfgang |
|
17 Apr 02 - 09:34 AM (#692040) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Nigel Parsons I did mean victim, not defendant. I am a strong believer in "Innocent until proven guilty" although UK law has moved away from this in some cases. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 08:22 PM (#692477) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Stephen L. Rich Nigel -- In what way has British law moved away from "innocent until proven guilty"? As an American all I know of British law are those parts which we we have adapted (mutated?) for our system. |
|
18 Apr 02 - 09:40 AM (#692777) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Mrrzy And do the Scots still have Not Proven as a possible verdict? Does anybody else? |
|
19 Apr 02 - 12:53 AM (#693419) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR I find it interesting that on a forum where so many participants appear to be so concerned about human rights, only fifteen people (less than that considering my posts) have expressed an opinion on this subject. Is it reasonable to assume then, that those of you who espose the Liberal philosophy are only concerned with the accused? DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 12:55 AM (#693422) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR Oops! I meant the "rights" of the accused. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 08:18 AM (#693626) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: sophocleese Stupid to use such a broad brush Doug R. I am concerned with the rights of all, victims and criminals. Its just a lot easier for people to mentally let the rights of the criminal slide because "they deserve it". Wolfgang's post summed up a lot of my thoughts on this issue. Establish the fact of the crime first, then, with a clear perpetrator and victim, you can discuss their respective rights. What is weird is that many people who are support retributive justice instead of restorative justice do so in the name of the victims. Retributive justice doesn't give the victim anything. Restorative justice often attempts to heal the victim. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:10 AM (#693660) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: pattyClink I hadn't commented because I didn't have a lot to add, but I appreciated the thread. The issue is not on the 'front burner' of our consciousness right now, there have been few recent sensational crimes to put it there. Just not a hot issue right now, unfortunately. I had not thought about us needing an amendment, but it strikes me as a good solution. The Founders never intended for criminals to have extra rights, but that is what has happened. Perhaps they never realized we would have such a large criminal class nor such aggressive lawyers seeking all possible advantages for them. We need to make sure the rights of criminals and innocent accused remain in place but do not 'trump' the rights of everyone else, particularly victims. So it's a good thing. As for liberals, I can't speak for them, I'm moderate. I suspect this is one of those issues which is not comfortable for them to discuss because it requires admitting we have been far too tolerant of wrongdoers at the expense of innocent victims, and we have been led to that place by liberal policies. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:40 PM (#694100) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: DougR Sophoclese: I won't respond to your "stupid" statement because I find it a bit sophomoric, but I am sure you are aware that the accused, and those found guilty, already have "rights." It is the victims who have no rights. DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 10:02 PM (#694108) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: artbrooks Well, I never have been sure what a "liberal" is, but I'm generally opposed to Constitutional amendments. Its a lot a trouble getting rid of them after you figure out they are unnecessary, a step in the wrong direction, or both. I have a lot of trouble conceiving of how such a thing could be worded so that it could pass through all of the necessary hoops and then doesn't go directly to the courts and stay there forever. If there is going to be monetary compensation, who pays? Criminals generally don't have any money. Are we going to increase taxes again to set up a fund? Does the offender stay in jail, where he can't earn any money, until he pays? How would you deal with attempted suicide (a criminal offense in the US)? Is a dope user a criminal or a victim? How about getting rid of some of the stupider "criminal rights" instead? Bail for violent crimes comes immediately to mind. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM (#696199) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: Stephen L. Rich refresh |
|
23 Apr 02 - 12:38 PM (#696581) Subject: RE: BS: Victim's rights good? bad? From: GUEST "The society of late twentieth century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense - club or spear, broadsword or long bow, rifle or Bowie knife. It also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, fairness, deference to authority and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts, or revolvers on their hips, It is a fair bet you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy he dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit. Today, discourtesy is commonplace precisely because there is no price to pay for it." Samuel Francis As Heinlein put it, "An armed society is a polite society." |