Do you feel that criminals are protected more than victims?

Answer 1

Lets see. A murderer can only be to put death in a HUMANE and painless way.. Were the victims humanely and painlessly killed.? God forbid if a rapist or child molestor gets treated badly...that's cause for lawsuit.. and the trend continues..

Answer 2

They are.

When was the last time a criminal read someone their rights?

We bend over backwards in the US to protect a criminals rights. But it is the state going after someone, and the person they are going after may be innocent.

That said, I've seen a lot of cases tossed out because the police did something against the law. Like conducting a search without a warrant. But, as long as the evidence wasn't fabricated, or planted, I believe it SHOULD BE ADMITTED into the criminal case, BUT CHARGES should be pressed against the police involved. After all evidence is evidence and the justice system should care about justice and the truth. If the evidence wasn't planted or fabricated then it should be allowed in. Then charge the police for breaking the law. Simple enough, the criminal is held responsible for their actions and the police are responsible for their actions.

But that's just my opinion.

Answer 3

Well, let's see. You are in a courtroom. On one side is the entire power of the government, backed with lawyers and policemen with guns. The government is trying to put a person into jail. A witness is called by the government to produce evidence to put the person in jail.

Who in this scenario NEEDS protection from the government? Certainly, people accused of crimes (who may or may not be criminals) receive more protection against the government than people the government is NOT trying to put in jail. Shouldn't they?

Answer 4

Yes, and especially in states with no death penalty.