4 ms·

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 ha

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

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.