3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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".
  - will_brown 10y ago
    If your entire point about Victim's rights was simply that they don't have a right to bring a private criminal prosecution, I misunderstood and that is correct. There is no right for individuals to bring private causes of action in criminal court, at least that I am aware of. Moreover, the prosecutor represents the State not the Victim. Though in practice Victim's rights in the criminal context are more than sentiment and bluster, just one example, before accepting a plea a Judge will have the Victim testify at the plea hearing or at minimum confirm on the record the prosecutor has conferred with the Victim regarding the offer and that the Victim has no objections. Also when talking about Victim's rights, you can not focus entirely on the criminal context you have to look at the civil too, if for no other reason than the standard is different, beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). This is how you see cases like OJ, acquitted in the criminal murder trial, but guilty in the civil wrongful death trial. Additionally, there are even civil causes of action, that in my opinion, tend to blur the line between civil and criminal because of the liberty interests at stake of the Defendant. For example, in this case aside from the Defendant being able to sue civilly outside the criminal prosecution, should could also bring a petition for restraining order in civil court. Such an Order enforcing the Victim's rights would limit the rights/liberties of the Defendant all outside the criminal context. Further, there are other types of actions, that I would define as quasi-criminal, but are clearly civil in the jurisdictional sense. Take Qui Tam lawsuits, literally meaning "on behalf of the King", these are triggered by the Whistle Blower Statute(s) and provide a private individual the right to sue civilly and collect money on behalf of the Government.

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".
- will_brown 10y ago
  If your entire point about Victim's rights was simply that they don't have a right to bring a private criminal prosecution, I misunderstood and that is correct. There is no right for individuals to bring private causes of action in criminal court, at least that I am aware of. Moreover, the prosecutor represents the State not the Victim. Though in practice Victim's rights in the criminal context are more than sentiment and bluster, just one example, before accepting a plea a Judge will have the Victim testify at the plea hearing or at minimum confirm on the record the prosecutor has conferred with the Victim regarding the offer and that the Victim has no objections. Also when talking about Victim's rights, you can not focus entirely on the criminal context you have to look at the civil too, if for no other reason than the standard is different, beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). This is how you see cases like OJ, acquitted in the criminal murder trial, but guilty in the civil wrongful death trial. Additionally, there are even civil causes of action, that in my opinion, tend to blur the line between civil and criminal because of the liberty interests at stake of the Defendant. For example, in this case aside from the Defendant being able to sue civilly outside the criminal prosecution, should could also bring a petition for restraining order in civil court. Such an Order enforcing the Victim's rights would limit the rights/liberties of the Defendant all outside the criminal context. Further, there are other types of actions, that I would define as quasi-criminal, but are clearly civil in the jurisdictional sense. Take Qui Tam lawsuits, literally meaning "on behalf of the King", these are triggered by the Whistle Blower Statute(s) and provide a private individual the right to sue civilly and collect money on behalf of the Government.