Why does the Judicial system give more rights to the accused than anyone else?

Answer 1

Because habeas corpus, the essential right of the accused, is the cornerstone of 7 centuries of social contract. A free society should find nothing more sacred than its compassion and humanity towards the criminally accused; as there can be fewer sins greater than getting it wrong--which even with safeguards in place, happens far too frequently.

Answer 2

There are many good answers here. First, of course, you need to recognize that the judicial system includes a lot more than criminal cases. The reason why the criminal law system is different is because it is the only place where the government is attempting to deprive somebody of his life, liberty, or property. The accused is the only person in the court the government is trying to affect in this way, and the rights the accused has are the same as those held by anybody when the government tries to take life, liberty, or property.

I think one of the reasons things have gotten off the track is that prosecutors like to portray themselves as vindicating the "rights of victims." However, the prosecutors do not represent victims, they represent the State. The criminal system is designed so that the government can punish bad guys, which is sure better than blood feuds and individual vengeance, but it must be remembered that it is the government, and not the witnesses, who is acting against the defendant, and the rights the defendant holds are to protect him from the government--a very good idea.

The civil system of law exists to vindicate the rights of victims, and does a pretty good job of it. (Case in point, O.J. Simpson, who could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but who still was found civilly liable.)

Answer 3

This is not necessarily true my friend. While the accused has all the rights afforded him by the constitution, keep in mind that the victims of crimes share the exact same rights. The accused has the right to a defense attorney during proceedings. The victim has the right to permit the District to represent his interests in court. The accused has the right to remain silent anything he says can and will be used against him. The victim has the right to remain silent, however, anything he does NOT say cannot be used against anybody. The accused has the right to confront his accuser. The victim has the right to what's known as a victim impact statement, meaning he has the right to confront the one who has committed an offense against him. Don't be fooled by the rights of the accused becuase the victim has the same rights as everyone else.

Answer 4

Because most of the accused are under-previlaged and downtrodden communities and do not have access to legal assistance and in most cases it was powerful sections that tries to take advantage of the judicial system. Till the criminal act is established on a person, he should be regarded as a innocent. He is only accused, but not criminal till the court decides.

Answer 5

Only the "accused" are subject to the judicial system. Are you referring to the victims? They are not the ones on trial. The rights allotted to the accused are allotted to everyone if and/or once they become the accused.

Answer 6

It only seems that way, but in reality this government has circumvented the Constitution. It has captured and imprisoned people without charge or trial in foreign, secret prisons. The government even wants to know what kind of books you check out at the library and it checks what subject matter you google on the internet. They even kidnapped and tortured an American citizen who happened to be a reporter in Iraq. He was tortured night-after-night without charge, and forced to listen to very loud hard rock music around the clock, keeping lights on, taping eyelids open, and interrogating him every 2-3 hrs around the clock. This happened to him for 9 months. He was denied his rights to an attorney, and denied a right to contact his family to let them know he was alive. Our judicial system is way out of whack. We are innocent until proven guilty under the law, not the other way around. When we water-down the Constitution, we are all victims with diminished rights.

Answer 7

I think it just seems that way because people think that the accused are guilty and therefore should not have rights. Well, in the US the accused are innocent until proven otherwise so the rights that they are given are the rights that we are all entitled to. In some societies, such as in France, the accused are guilty until proven otherwise. Not much fun there if one is falsely accused.

Answer 8

Do you think that the presumption of innocence is some chump change or what? The problem is that fools like bush suspend the Constitution and change the rules protecting the innocent, "those that are assumed to be innocent until proved otherwise." (The presumption of innocence)
The ruling party in America at this time is free Enterprise which is not free nor does it serve America today. It serves the upper class who have a right, it seems, to make huge sums of money and not have to pay their share of Taxes.
Check it out. Progressive Taxes! It built the American Middle Class which is now fading because Progressive Taxes have been gutted.

Answer 9

The question is confusing. I think you have the idea that the bad guys are more protected than their victims? That in the end, the families of the victims just have to suffer for the rest of their lives and the bad guy gets a minimum jail sentence and first digs at a parole.

Yes i watch TV too. And yes, it appears that way.

Answer 10

Because being accused already puts you in a bad place. There have been too many cases of inncent people paying something they didn't do. It's the way, unfortunately, the system has to be.