3 ms·

>Which of the victim's rights were violated here? By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated. >I've not heard any claims that the defendan

>Which of the victim's rights were violated here? By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated. >I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison. The 4th Amendment is not nearly as crystal clear as you say, it helps to read some case law on point. For example you will quickly find in the drug cases it is more a matter of the ability/likelihood the evidence could/will be destroy that is the litmus test (for a starting point read cases on the "knock and announce rule") not actually being in the process of destroying the evidence. Just thinking logically, officers would never be in a position to make a determination someone is behind closed doors flushing drugs or in front of their computer deleting files. And as we all know police can enter a dwelling without a warrant based on "exigent circumstances". >If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have. It is not up to the prosecutors, the Defendant has the right to take a plea. >He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job. Actually the Defendant did not get away with it, though I suppose you can make up your own definition, getting away with it in a criminal law context implies a dismissal, no info, nolle prosequi, or not guilty. Instead the Defendant took a plea to the charges, was placed on probation, violated probation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 12 months jail for the underlying crime. Not to mention he still has to face the new charges on the new crime. I think you are trying to argue that but for the officers searching/seizing the video evidence in violation of the 4th Amendment, and subsequent suppression, that the officers could have legally obtained that video evidence with a warrant and used it. Possible, but very unlikely, in fact what likely would have happened is exactly what the officers were concerned about, the evidence would have been destroyed. Then what? The prosecutor would have been in the same boat as the prosecutor was in anyway, no video evidence.

belovedeagle 10y ago
> By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated. You haven't actually made an argument here. We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... Can you provide the definition(s) you're thinking of which establish that crime victims have had the correct kind of right violated? In context, we're looking for rights of the kind which we would need to consider when judging the correctness of the post you responded to; i.e., rights which somehow should influence the legal procedures to which the accused is subject. My edit above was intended to reflect that I do think that the victim has suffered some kind of immoral and illegal behavior, but I do not agree that this implies, a priori, that the victim has suffered a breach of rights.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... You need to start at the very beginning, the definition of legal right. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start. Basically a legal right is something the law provides a legal remedy for if violated. Since you don't think the victim in this case had a right not to be kicked and punched against her will, I am really curious what you definition of legal right is. In this case the victim had a lawful right not to be kicked and punched against her will, and when she was the law provides her with remedies (both in the criminal and civil context). Note when ones rights are violated in the criminal context (e.g. you are a victim of a crime) that triggers yet more rights, including but not limited to, the right to be present, the right to be protected, and the right to privacy. [1] Just as an intellectual challenge try to conceive of being the victim of a crime, any crime, in which the law does not provide you with a remedy. And yes, even when a victim has been killed, the law still provides a remedy, for example, your family can sue civilly and/or be present during the criminal case and even make recommendations to the prosecutor. [1] https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    You're right about civil remedies; I was overlooking them because I was focused narrowly on victims' rights relevant to the criminal case in the article. I'm hardly a legal expert, but from what I know, in the US common law system victims have no rights pertaining to criminal trials (at least pre-sentencing). Using the Black's Law definition, victims/complainants have no remedy available if the prosecution declines to try the accused, or tries them ineffectively, or fails to secure a conviction, or fails to secure a punishment to the complainant's liking. Such remedies might be available in other systems; for example, I believe that it was once the case that private individuals could pursue criminal cases in the UK. In the US that right seems to be reserved to "the people" as represented by the government. Therefore no rights accrue to the victims in discontinued criminal matters. Note that your article specifically states at the end that many of these "rights" don't come with causes of action. Going by the Black's Law definition, then, they aren't rights at all. Indeed, they seem to be mostly sentiment and bluster; without an attached cause of action, if a victim finds himself enjoying any of the mentioned privileges, it is merely thanks to the benevolence of the court and the state. That's a great thing, but not a "right". [Edit to clarify:] The "sentiment and bluster" is in calling these bills "Victims' Rights" bills. For example, passing a law granting victims the "right" to be notified by the prosecutor's office of changes in the case status which doesn't grant any causes of action against the prosecutor's office when they fail to do so amounts to the legislature stating, "It's the belief of this legislature that it'd be really a great thing if prosecutors did this". Encoding that statement into law instead of just a passing a motion to that effect is what's "sentiment and bluster".

belovedeagle 10y ago

> By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated. You haven't actually made an argument here. We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... Can you provide the definition(s) you're thinking of which establish that crime victims have had the correct kind of right violated? In context, we're looking for rights of the kind which we would need to consider when judging the correctness of the post you responded to; i.e., rights which somehow should influence the legal procedures to which the accused is subject. My edit above was intended to reflect that I do think that the victim has suffered some kind of immoral and illegal behavior, but I do not agree that this implies, a priori, that the victim has suffered a breach of rights.

will_brown 10y ago
>We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... You need to start at the very beginning, the definition of legal right. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start. Basically a legal right is something the law provides a legal remedy for if violated. Since you don't think the victim in this case had a right not to be kicked and punched against her will, I am really curious what you definition of legal right is. In this case the victim had a lawful right not to be kicked and punched against her will, and when she was the law provides her with remedies (both in the criminal and civil context). Note when ones rights are violated in the criminal context (e.g. you are a victim of a crime) that triggers yet more rights, including but not limited to, the right to be present, the right to be protected, and the right to privacy. [1] Just as an intellectual challenge try to conceive of being the victim of a crime, any crime, in which the law does not provide you with a remedy. And yes, even when a victim has been killed, the law still provides a remedy, for example, your family can sue civilly and/or be present during the criminal case and even make recommendations to the prosecutor. [1] https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  You're right about civil remedies; I was overlooking them because I was focused narrowly on victims' rights relevant to the criminal case in the article. I'm hardly a legal expert, but from what I know, in the US common law system victims have no rights pertaining to criminal trials (at least pre-sentencing). Using the Black's Law definition, victims/complainants have no remedy available if the prosecution declines to try the accused, or tries them ineffectively, or fails to secure a conviction, or fails to secure a punishment to the complainant's liking. Such remedies might be available in other systems; for example, I believe that it was once the case that private individuals could pursue criminal cases in the UK. In the US that right seems to be reserved to "the people" as represented by the government. Therefore no rights accrue to the victims in discontinued criminal matters. Note that your article specifically states at the end that many of these "rights" don't come with causes of action. Going by the Black's Law definition, then, they aren't rights at all. Indeed, they seem to be mostly sentiment and bluster; without an attached cause of action, if a victim finds himself enjoying any of the mentioned privileges, it is merely thanks to the benevolence of the court and the state. That's a great thing, but not a "right". [Edit to clarify:] The "sentiment and bluster" is in calling these bills "Victims' Rights" bills. For example, passing a law granting victims the "right" to be notified by the prosecutor's office of changes in the case status which doesn't grant any causes of action against the prosecutor's office when they fail to do so amounts to the legislature stating, "It's the belief of this legislature that it'd be really a great thing if prosecutors did this". Encoding that statement into law instead of just a passing a motion to that effect is what's "sentiment and bluster".