4 ms·

Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet not

Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet not involved. I wonder if this will turn up in MIT's report.

zaidf 14y ago
Total guess: may be if both "victims" signed off on an agreement(whether it had legal standing or not) it would make it significantly more difficult for the prosecutors to move forward with the criminal case.
_delirium 14y ago
It's a longstanding legal debate, but in practice victims' opinions have a significant role in many plea bargains. Part of it, as far as I can tell, is that the U.S. doesn't have a purely protect-the-public conception of what the purpose of criminal law is, but also has a strong undercurrent of retributive justice. It's pretty common to hear people talk about a trial helping victims "achieve justice". So it's much easier for a prosecutor to sign off on a plea bargain if the victims support it than if they don't, even if their opposition wouldn't have legal standing. And more recently there is some weak legal standing for victims' opinions on the matter. A number of states, and the federal government, have enacted "victims' rights" laws giving (alleged) victims some right to have their opinions heard in a case. The federal version [1] confers two rights relevant to having their opinion heard (though not necessarily followed) when negotiating plea bargains: 1) "The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding." and 2) "The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." [1] http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-r...

4 ms·

Wait, I thought the idea is that the prosecutor represents The People and not The Victim? It's very confusing to me how JSTOR and MIT are involved and yet not

by haberman 14y ago

zaidf 14y ago
Total guess: may be if both "victims" signed off on an agreement(whether it had legal standing or not) it would make it significantly more difficult for the prosecutors to move forward with the criminal case.
_delirium 14y ago
It's a longstanding legal debate, but in practice victims' opinions have a significant role in many plea bargains. Part of it, as far as I can tell, is that the U.S. doesn't have a purely protect-the-public conception of what the purpose of criminal law is, but also has a strong undercurrent of retributive justice. It's pretty common to hear people talk about a trial helping victims "achieve justice". So it's much easier for a prosecutor to sign off on a plea bargain if the victims support it than if they don't, even if their opposition wouldn't have legal standing. And more recently there is some weak legal standing for victims' opinions on the matter. A number of states, and the federal government, have enacted "victims' rights" laws giving (alleged) victims some right to have their opinions heard in a case. The federal version [1] confers two rights relevant to having their opinion heard (though not necessarily followed) when negotiating plea bargains: 1) "The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding." and 2) "The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." [1] http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf http://www.justice.gov/olc/2010/availability-crime-victims-r...