Defendants have rights in trials and victims do not because

[cthulu2016]

a trial is a thing where the state proposes to put the defendant in jail.

If the state was proposing to put the victim in jail then the victim would have rights vis-a-vis the state to defend herself from being put in jail.

A trial is between the DEFENDANT and THE STATE. Those are the parties in conflict.

A victim, a witness, anyone other than the defendant is peripheral to the STATE vs. DEFENDANT conflict. They are not threatened by the state in the proceeding.

When people say "the victim is being put on trial" the victim is not actually being put on trial... unless that State is trying to imprison the victim then the victim is not on trial.

There have been, and will be, sometimes gross excesses in a defense's characterization/examination of a victim. This is famously true in sexual assault cases.

But there is a sound reason the defendant has more rights in a trial than the victim. The defendant is actually on trial... not as a figure of speech, but for real.


I know the logic of a criminal trial is tricky (no snark. it really is tricky if one is not used to it). It sometimes seems like the state is fighting for the victim because a lot of prosecutors are dreadful persons who sentimentalize and sensationalize and say they are fighting for the victim, but the state is NOT supposed to be pursuing the interests of the victim.

When someone is murdered THE STATE asserts an interest in THE STATE'S law against murder. THE STATE is the offended party in a criminal trial, not the victim. The crime is against the state. Sometimes that is phrased as "the people" which means the same thing. ALL the people. The theory of law is that all persons in Florida have the same interest in not being murdered and the same interest in justice. A trial for the victims' interests would be a civil case in which one person opposes another person—like the wrongful death suit following the OJ Simpson criminal trial.

It sucks that victims sometimes suffer from the extreme demands of a fair trial process. I am sympathetic to those distressed thereby.

But not convicting innocent people of crimes has to be the overriding concern in a criminal trial. The entire state is arrayed against one citizen. There are reasons that citizen is given wide latitude to defend himself.

We do not want to send innocent people to jail and our system (when it works) bends over backward to avoid it.

And all these protections are there for the victims also -- if they end up in a court charged with a crime they will enjoy the same rights. They are rights of all people.

[John2]

1. So what is the

status of the victim's family and friends? They have feelings too.

[Indydem]

2. Feelings?

Really?

The state is intending to deprive someone of their freedom - not hurt their feelings.

[cthulu2016]

3. A criminal proceeding is not about feelings, which doesn't mean feelings don't matter

I am all for the state being nice to victims, helping them in any humane and compassionate way. I am pro-victim.

But not to the point of deforming a legal process out of concern for the feelings of victims. The legal process must be (should be or aspire to be) independent of all considerations outside the narrow question being decided. Every other consideration should bow to getting the right verdict.

The state does not convict someone as a salve to the feelings of victims. If the family hated their dad and were glad he was killed should the state factor that in somehow by being less vigorous in prosecution?

That's not a snarky question. It's real... if the state should convict as a benefit to victims then we get into some crazy territory. Should there be a lower standard of proof based on how beloved the victim was? If the feelings are greater, and the process involves feelings in a way that would shape legal process, then the intensity of feelings should play a role in shaping legal process.

The whole "victim impact statement" thing in sentencing, for instance, is rather twisted when one recognizes that there are always two sides to a coin in a justice context. I means there should be bigger sentences for people who are loved, are popular, or financially depended upon.

But the state is supposed to be filled with abstract wrath that somebody murdered a human being. There's no reason for the state to value the life of an unpopular homeless person less than the life of a beloved mother of five because the state is supposed to care as much about anyone being murdered. (Supposed to. In practical effect, of course not. Less resources will be devoted to finding and prosecuting the killer of the homeless guy, but that is a defect in the way we operate.)

[hack89]

4. They are secondary to the rights of the defendant

they do not have a right to not be offended, hurt or insulted by the proceedings.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I would imagine the friends and family of a wrongly convicted person would be equally upset.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

Good luck.