Victims' rights fair and equal cja 394
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•547 views
This document discusses the history and evolution of victims' rights. It outlines how victims' roles have changed from a victim-centered justice system in the Middle Ages to losing their voice in the 20th century criminal justice system. Key developments discussed include the 1972 Linda R.S. v. Richard D. Supreme Court case, the 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act that established various rights for victims, and examples of victims advocating for their rights in 2012 and 2011 cases in Montana and Oregon. The document concludes by discussing considerations around balancing victims' rights with the rights of the accused in the future criminal justice system.
More Related Content
Similar to Victims' rights fair and equal cja 394
Similar to Victims' rights fair and equal cja 394 (20)
More from Mimi Harvill
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Victims' rights fair and equal cja 394
- 1. Victims’ Rights: Fair and Equal? Mimi Harvill CJA/394 October 9, 2013 Michelle Mann
- 2. Victims’ Rights in the Past Middle Ages – 19th Century • Heavily based on Common Law • Crimes were against an individual • Victim-Centered Justice 20th Century • Crimes were against an individual and the “people” • Victims lost their voice in the courtroom • Victims became a piece of evidence • Public Prosecution Justice
- 3. Texas 1972 Linda R.S. v. Richard D. • Deadbeat Dad did not pay child support • Mother wanted to force Father to pay • Texas court said No, the child is illegitimate • The prosecutor refused to prosecute the Father United States Supreme Court 1973 • Held the decision and did force the Prosecutor to prosecute the Father • Mother could not show a connection between obtaining child support monies and punishing Deadbeat Dad • Court ruled a citizen lacks the understanding to decide who should be prosecuted Victims’ Rights in the Past
- 4. How do you think Linda felt?
- 5. 2004 Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) • the right to information • the right to be present at criminal justice proceedings; • the right to due process, and the right to notice of and opportunity to be heard at important criminal justice proceedings • the right to financial recompense for losses suffered as a result of a crime • the right to protection • the right to privacy Victims’ Rights in the Present
- 6. December 6, 2012 at a cathedral in Billings, Montana • Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) • Held signs in protest of an alleged crime against children by a local clericNovember 24, 2011 at the parole board in the Oregon State Correctional Institution • Roper was a model prisoner • Roper attended classes • Roper sought rehabilitative therapy • Victim’s family addressed the parole board • The board declined the release of Roper, and sentenced him to two more years in prison Victims’ Rights in the Present
- 7. Victims’ Rights in the Future Victims Rights’ Impact Future Court Proceedings • Prosecution should be allowed some discretion • Courts need to evaluate appeals • Be wary of the power of the victim to sway court proceedings
- 8. The rights of the accused are equal to the rights of the victim; that is the duty of the legal system.
Editor's Notes
- 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).
- 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).
- 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
- 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.
- 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/
- 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
- 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