Rights of victims of crime

¶ … crime victims have begun to have rights in the constitutional law. Before that, crime victims were ignored from the Criminal Justice procedure being prohibited from being present during the trial or proceedings as well as during the arrest and release of the defendants. They also could not make a statement to the court at the sentencing or during other hearings. The criminal justice system considered them exempt from the case and that they would, at best, interfere and disrupt with proceedings.

The situation, during the last two decades, has changed with more than 32 states including laws that protect the rights of crime victims and include them in the law making sentence and involvement of the case. States have also passed laws that protect the rights of victims, and an entire movement has arisen for the basis of protecting these rights (the National Center for Victims of Crime).

These laws, and protections of these laws vary from state to state with some extending to victims of juvenile offenders whilst most are limited to victims of violent crimes or victims of felonies.

The rights that victims are given general consist of the following four instances (although most states include far more, whilst some include less). The four amendments are:

1. Victims of crimes have the right to be informed of proceedings and events, such as the release of the defendant

2. Victims of crimes have the right to attend the trial as well as other proceedings

3. Crime victims must be allowed a voice in the proceedings particularly during critical junctures that include parole hearing and sentencing

4. Crime victims must be awarded restitution from a convicted offender (the National Center for Victims of Crime).

The points taken in this essay are, firstly, that justice is most constructive and best viewed when it is seen as wounding another rather than as violating a principle. Secondly, the victim, being more involved with the crime and understanding of the situation as well as more intimate with it than the legislators is better able to articulate his opinion than they. Thirdly, it is only logical that the victim be involved and heard. After all he was the one who was hurt. And finally, victim's advocates work towards the objective that victim's rights be granted constitutional protection so that average citizens will be aware that not only do offenders have rights but that victims have rights too and that these are equally as strong.

Counter arguments will be brought against these claims

Idea 1. Justice is placating victim rather than penalizing

The system of Criminal Justice designs crime as "a violation of the State, defined by lawbreaking and guilt. Justice determines blame and administers pain in a contest between the offender and the State directed by systematic rules" (Zehr, 1980, p.60). On the other hand, Zehr argues, a constructive criminal justice should see crime as constituting of a violation of people and interpersonal relationships, rather than violation of a government law. In essence, what is really happening is that the offender creates a chasm in the fabric of human relationships and dents harmonious running of society by hurting another. It is the victim qua human being, rather than the government, that is offended and, therefore, it is the victim, rather than the government, who must be placated. The focus should be on the victim and, therefore, the victim's voice should be brought into the proceedings (Braithwaite, 1989; Dignan, 2002; 2003).

We may, however, argue that whilst it makes sense that justice revolves around offense to victim and that, therefore, the victim should be given a voice; opponents may argue that there are some cases where many victims are involved and that bringing them into the case may complicate and obfuscate the trial proceedings. Also, too, it may, in some cases, be difficult to define who is actually a victim since -- considering this through the lens of systems theory - ramifications of the crime extend to so many toehr people that even those closest to the actual person wounded or attacked could also, at times, be called victims with certain core rights. To illustrate: a person may be attacked become physically injured as a result, losing his job and sole income. Those also critically affected would be the spouse (who may become clinically depressed) and his children (who may drop-out of school, turn to drugs, and so forth). In this case, all of these individuals (and possible more) are victims with sufferings no less intense than the person who was most intimately involved. Taking system theory into consideration, one can then question where the definition and rights f victims should stop. Limits must be placed -- but where?

Argument 2: The victim knows best

Here I follow Christie's argument for restorative justice. In his famous article that was published in the British Journal of Criminology and that pioneered the concept of restorative justice, Christie argued that violations occur in real life, not in academic circles where law is parsed or in other legal institutions removed from mundane reality. It is on the streets of the nation that law occurs and, therefore, involved parties should be allowed the opportunity to articulate their opinions about the case. In reality, the State (according to Christie) has "stolen the conflict" between citizens resulting in the fact that society has been deprived of the "opportunities for norm-classification." Social conflicts, problems, and troubles, Christie believes, are best dealt with and analyzed by those who live that particular background. Referring them to specialists, however the intelligence end background degrees of these specialists, oftentimes eventuates in misunderstand and potential erroneous response. Legal procedures are often conducted by reducing cases to the narrow legal definition of relevancies of the case, but in this way, victim and offender cannot explore the full details and ramifications of the case nor the extent of their culpability. This can best be corrected by victim being brought into the case.

Opponents may argue that the victim is too involved in his plight, therefore corrupted in his ability to perceive matters fairly and objectively (e.g. Acorn, 2004). Many individuals wish to see the offender punished for his or her crime and this elemental urge animates their reaction towards the criminal. Justice is supposed to be a component of compassion and vigilance towards community, integrated with strict reasoning. All three components are, somehow or other supposed to cooperate together and be bound in perpetuity. It is only those most versed in the nuances and portfolio of the proceedings as well as strictly focusing on the requirements of the law and on legal precedents when situations are ambiguous, who are most adept at judging cases. Although it is true that these individuals may be less acquainted with the situation as occurred in actuality than the victim is, nonetheless they have the advantage of seeing it form a distance and of approaching it from a learned and experienced stance. This should not be discounted.

Idea 3: The victim was hurt.

This is logical. The victim was hurt; therefore he should plead his case. We may argue that whilst it makes sense that justice revolves around offense to victim and that, therefore, the victim should be given a voice, opponents may argue that there are some cases where many victims are involved and that bringing them into the case may complicate and obfuscate the trial proceedings particularly when (see argument above) it may be difficult to limit the definition or quantity of involved victims.

Idea 4. Constitutional strength

The groups called the Victims Constitutional Amendment Network is seeking to grant victims rights constitutional protection in order to increase the strength, enforceability, and permanence of victims rights. Giving it constitutional strength would ascertain that victims be granted the same federal protection that offenders, in the name of law, are granted. Criminal defendants have certain recognized and court protected rights. Defendants of victims should have these same rights, too.

Furthermore, constitutional protection of victim's rights gives certain hallowedness to the protection of victims. Citizens are aware of the rights of criminal but not aware of the rights of victims. Safeguarding these rights will empower victims and encourage them to take a stance.