�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #3: In English Common Law the victims were the prosecutors; if no victim is identified then no crime occurred. Crimes were perceived to be against an individual, not against the government or society. This victim-centered justice was the norm from the Middle Ages and into the 19th century. Evolution of the United States justice system addressed crimes against an individual, and crimes against the government or “the people.” Victim-centered system was replaced by the public prosecution system. The victims lost their voice in the courtroom, and became little more than a piece of evidence (Davis, 2005).
• #4: In Texas, in 1972, a woman wanted to force the father of her child to pay child support; the case of Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). The Texas court said there was no reason because the child was illegitimate; the prosecutor declined to prosecute the father. This case moved-up to United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held the prosecutor did not have to prosecute the father because the mother could not show a connection between obtaining child support monies andputting the father in jail. The court considered this a disconnect because the incarceration of the father would not produce the child support the mother wanted. The court ruled that a citizen lacks the understanding to decide who should be prosecuted (Center for Victim and Human Rights).
• #5: Linda was a victim with neither rights nor recourse. This issue brought a change, the swing of the pendulum moved towards supporting victims’ rights. In 1972 the Aid for Victims of Crime was created, several organizations have since developed for a myriad of victims’ rights issues.http://www.thewomenscenterinc.org/wp-content/uploads/domestic-violence-1.jpg
• #6: In 2004 the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) was created to protect victims at the Federal level. Protections at the state level are dependent on the local jurisdiction; states should apply the federal code to the state code (FBI, n.d.) (Wood, 2008). The right for the victim to be protected from further harm is noble, but it can muddle the ideal of pure justice. Look at these two examples of the effect of victim-impact statements and the right of allocution.
• #7: In 1987, Kevin A. Roper brutally murdered a man in the theft of $40.Roper was sentenced to life at the Oregon State Correctional Institution(Zaitz, 2011). Understanding restorative justice, this is a success in victims’ rights. On the other hand, Roper was a model prisoner; he attended classes and sought therapy. It is possible that Roper could be an asset to the community. Now he is a product of an overcrowded prison. Perhaps in this instance the family wielded too much power in the sentencing process.http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/11/convict_in_portland_murder_fac.htmlStanding-up for the rights of a victim is honorable, especially when the victim is a child. The actions of some victims’ rights groups, such as SNAP, can lend itself to vigilantism. In this example, the cleric was not convicted of a crime, yet he was treated as a criminal (Clohessy, 2012). http://whbl.com/news/articles/2013/feb/19/long-time-seminary-prep-school-leader-removed/
• #8: Which brings me to the future of victims’ rights; we should be wary of the power of the victim to sway court proceedings in an un-fair manner. The prosecution should be allowed some discretion upon which cases need to go to trial; the criminal justice system is already over-tasked (Levine, 2010). Appeals should be based upon the trial, not based upon the individual rights of the victim.When awarding rights to the victim, society should scrutinize the emotional affects a victim brings into the courtroom. http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/moRA_f_6_f2RI5Zhlz1KeGA.jpg
• #9: In our society victims have rights, but all citizens have rights. The presence of an emotional victim in the courtroom could corrupt the court and bring some level of bias, thwarting the spirit of true justice. The court should remainunbiased. The rights of the accused are equal to the rights of the victim; that is the duty of the legal system.The judicial system is designed for all citizens to be treated fairly and for the delivery of true justice. If we treat our judicial system as PRIVATE PROPERTY then the PUBLIC will no RIGHT OF WAY