There good ways to make money are no victims in criminal court simple justice

It’s hard to argue against “marsy’s law,” both because victims are inherently sympathetic (and in the age of empathy, don’t we all feel just horrible about the poor victims?), and because it’s more an overarching concept than a specific thing, as each jurisdiction that considers or enacts a victim’s bill of rights does so a little differently, each expecting to tweak it to make it workable.

From the perspective of the public, this not only seems just and fair, but obvious. Shouldn’t we be concerned about victims? Shouldn’t victims be treated with respect? Shouldn’t victims deserve to be protected from the retraumatization of good ways to make money their abusers? There’s certainly a strong pull in favor of answering each good ways to make money of these questions with a resounding “yes.”

It’s not that there is no place for a victim good ways to make money to go to obtain relief from the harm done them. That’s what civil courts are for, offering declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. It might not be sufficient, either because you can’t get blood from a stone or because it fails good ways to make money to provide the satisfaction demanded of a victim for life good ways to make money plus cancer, but criminal law isn’t about the victim. You might feel it should be, but it isn’t.

The legitimacy of criminal punishment, imprisonment, death, is about the harm done to society, not to any individual. It serves to protect individuals in society, but it is society that claims to be offended by good ways to make money the conduct. Prosecutors act in the name of the state or the good ways to make money people, not as lawyer for the victim. This isn’t to suggest prosecutors should be callous toward their complaining good ways to make money witnesses. There is no reason why prosecutors shouldn’t treat their putative victims with respect no matter what, but the fact that some fail to do so is good ways to make money a flaw with prosecutors, not a mandate to give victims rights against both the good ways to make money prosecution and defense.

The specifics aside, there are no legitimate interests on each side. In the well of a criminal courtroom, there is only one person who stands to lose should good ways to make money the verdict be one word. That person has the right to assist in his own good ways to make money defense, to confront witnesses against him. That cannot be fulfilled if he’s deprived of knowledge of the evidence, of the allegations against him, of the opportunity to know everything that will be thrown good ways to make money against him so he can tell his lawyer what to good ways to make money throw back.

This will feel like a terribly harsh position, one that cares nothing for the harm done by a good ways to make money defendant or the risk faced by a victim. It will also come off as unfair, now that the overton window of victimhood has shifted from good ways to make money concern for the constitutional rights of the defendant against the good ways to make money overwhelming power of the government to the concern for the good ways to make money fear and sadness of the victims, for whom the government has shown too little concern. And indeed, it is a very harsh position.

But the “rights” of the victim, in far more ways than might appear from think tank good ways to make money or academic distance, come at the expense of the defendant.You remember the defendant, the person for whom the constitution and bill of rights good ways to make money actually enumerates rights because the defendant is the person who good ways to make money will end up imprisoned or dead when his rights are good ways to make money curtailed? It may be a lousy and inadequate system for everyone good ways to make money involved, but impinging on the minimal rights afforded the defendant to good ways to make money fight the government doesn’t make it better, even if it makes people feel that way.

In criminal courts, “victims” are what we have after the jury returns a verdict good ways to make money of guilty. Until they get to that point, there are no victims. But even then, they are collateral to the criminal law, complaining witnesses or accusers, because they neither have, nor should have, any status in the well of a court that serves good ways to make money only societal interests, not those of any individual.

Acquiescing to any legitimacy of the interests of victims before good ways to make money a conviction gives away the most important premise of criminal good ways to make money law: the defendant is presumed innocent. Until the presumption is ended by conviction, there are no victims. There is no wiggle room in the well that allows good ways to make money us to give away the defendant’s right to be innocent so the victim can feel good ways to make money better.

My state of ohio had a freaking constitutional amendment to good ways to make money include a victim’s bill of rights. I’ll confess ignorance as to whether other states enacted legislation good ways to make money or actually amended their constitutions. Perhaps this is a problem nationwide, but in ohio at least, we are still awaiting the glorious enabling legislation that lets good ways to make money all the players know how to actually deal with the good ways to make money flowery language that’s in our constitution now.

Very few, if any, players in the actual system seem pleased as it unnecessarily good ways to make money complicates things for all involved. One such issue I’ve now dealt with multiple times relates to the victim’s right to be present for all proceedings. Can the victim sit through all of the testimony at good ways to make money trial, notwithstanding an order for separation of witnesses? Can she perhaps sit through all testimony and even testify good ways to make money in rebuttal about how the rapist got it all wrong? Can she file an interlocutory appeal? It is just a nightmare.

It wouldn’t be soooo bad had it been a statutory thing, rather than the supreme law of my state. But, on the flip side, I hope we find the solution in the supremacy clause. No state can deprive someone of their constitutional guarantees, even if they pass legislation or amend their constitution. I hope that the 5th, 6th and 7th prevail and make these “rights” meaningless in the end. But when is the end? How many years is this going to take, and how many trials will be disrupted, delayed, and how many unfair trials will have to be a good ways to make money redo. Will victim’s advocates feel better when years down the line a good ways to make money conviction is overturned on federal constitutional grounds, only to find out the state cannot locate neighbor lilly good ways to make money again to testify?

I’m a murder victim’s family member who cares about every aspect of these good ways to make money issues- I’ve worked hard in violence prevention, helping troubled youth, and in restorative justice and sentencing reform. I visit prisons and I advocate for the incarcerated. I helped lead the campaign in illinois to abolish the good ways to make money death penalty. And I support constitutional and enforceable rights for crime victims good ways to make money just as I do for the accused and offenders. So I’ve heard this argument before and wanted to make sure good ways to make money those who misunderstand some basic structural truths don’t misspeak. Yes the accused is not guilty until proven innocent. But the status of the accused is not relevant to good ways to make money the question of whether or not there was a crime. The crime happened. The victim exists independent and apart from the presumption of good ways to make money innocence of the accused. Victim’s rights to be notified, present, and heard where appropriate have nothing to do with the good ways to make money important rights of the accused. They are parallel rights not on the same spectrum and good ways to make money not in competition. Victim’s and accused rights must both be constitutional and enforceable good ways to make money to be meaningful, as you well know. They both must exist therefore at the constitutional level. Many incarcerated offenders started off as victim’s whose rights were ignored. Let’s stop this cycle.