Why do criminals have more rights than their victims?

Answer 1

Traditionally speaking, the US legal foundation was borne of an era where criminals had absolutely no rights, and the authorities of the day would imprison you at their whim (think Soviet Union or life in a Puritan village). To address these false imprisonments and trumped up charges, the US Constitution and subsequent legislation defended habeas corpus and other rights of the accused and convicted because it safeguarded society and societal conscience against the possibility of false charges and imprisonment. Many death row inmates have been found to be innocent years later when technology proved them to be absolved of the crime.

That being said, I'd never want to be a victim of any crime, nor would I want my family or friends to ever be a victim of any crime. The anger and frustration and vengeance that comes to the forefront of our feelings and thought does attack the logic of criminals' rights head-on. But laws are meant for society, not the individual, and therefore the law has to be equitable and broadly applicable. If we don't like the laws, we can petition government to change them, or we can run for office to try to change them, or we can go where laws seem more fair to us and live there. But it is what it is today, and for all its warts, the US system is far better than other legal structures out there on the big blue marble.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Actually, it's a direct effect of the Constitution.

The 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution impose specific limits on government prosecution of accused criminals. As a result, defendants also have protections arising from the 4th and 8th Amendments.

Since victims are not being accused by the government, nor do they have the full weight of government prosecution and law enforcement thrown against them, these rights don't apply to them.

Your question makes on completely invalid assumption however. While there is no "right" to be free from being attacked, assault and battery are against the law. So, literally speaking, the victims don't have these protections as rights.

They simply have the entire criminal justice department on their side, against usually one underpaid public defender, trying to ensure that only the guilty are actually sent to jail.

Especially when tempers run high and mob mentality takes over, the victim sometimes ends up being the scapegoat who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, some criminals are just that. But the system is designed to try and level the playing field, to ensure that only those who are actually guilty are punished by the government.

Also, remember that the rights granted to the accused are for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial. Most of them don't come into play unless law enforcement first oversteps the bounds of law.

Answer 4

To the answer on "Liberalism": It has nothing to do with liberalism. That is not anything close to liberalism – that is right wing bigotry.

To the Question: No, the rights of the accused are the primary effect of living in a free country. If you don’t like it, go to China or Saudi Arabia where your rights aren’t guaranteed! The people who founded this country had lots of experience with being summarily arrested and convicted and sentenced with no rights at all. They put huge amounts of protections for the accused into our constitution, because they all knew what it was like to be accused and go through this. Clearly you do not.

The accused is simply the accused until proven guilty. They are not a “criminal” until or unless found guilty. Then they have almost no rights. If you serve on a Jury, every judge will give you a very stern lecture that you MUST NOT assume any guilt simply because someone has been arrested and charged with a crime or is on trail before you. You MUST assume they are innocent – That’s how our constitution works. You will be questioned, by the judge, and both lawyers to see if you really can follow this. If they think you can’t or you say you can’t you aren’t allowed to serve on a jury.

People run legal systems – they are very fallible and once you go through it, you’ll find out it convicts innocent people as often as guilty ones. We know that for a fact now. When DNA analysis was used on Death Row inmates in the state of Illinois. Out of the 25, 12 were still found to be guilty –BUT 13 were found to be completely innocent – 100% scientifically proved innocent. Illinois stopped their Death Penalties when they found this out – at last half of the “criminals” were actually innocent.

Check out the link below and educate yourself.

Answer 5

It's a side effect of liberalism. Liberalism teaches us that people are not fully responsible for their actions. So we look for all the excuses that show why it's not the criminal's fault. They were abused, somehow, forcing them to do what they did. Because it's not their fault, they need many protections.

Answer 6

Cut the Liberalism trash talk!

They have the exact rights guaranteed under the Constitution!! No more. no less since the Constitution was ratified over 200 years ago!

Now, if you asked if justice were blind I would have to say no, but it are only the wealthiest that can buy that type of justice.

Leaves me out!

Answer 7

Lets look at the big picture.....Something to do with the defense attorney lets look at who these Jerks are that are defending the criminals....making Big$$$ to do there jobs huh.Simple but true!

Answer 8

Hi, coragryph. I like and strongly agree with your answer to this question, compared to your question about the gay marriage issue.

Answer 9

Good question

Answer 10

They do not.