Why does a criminal have more rights then the victims and get light sentences?

Question

do you think it is fair?

Answer 1

Good question.
The recent idea of theoretical 'Human Rights' rather than rights achieved or established by long custom means that all people, no matter how vile, are equally entitled to protection by State agencies.
If we all have 'Human Rights' as a simple result of our existence as humans, then whatever crimes we commit (eg killing our fellow citizens) we are not deprived of the benefits of citizenship.
I never voted for that.

Answer 2

Talking about the rights of criminals versus the rights of victims is like comparing the height of automobiles to the width of rivers -- one has nothing to do with the other.

The rights of a criminal are defined in the Constitution -- and apply to anyone accused and prosecuted by the govt.

The rights of the victim are -- aside from as a witness -- an entirely unrelated issue, and are resolved in civil court between the victim and the defendant -- not in criminal court which is between the defendant and the govt.

Different courts, different rules, different rights involved.

Answer 3

It is not that criminals have rights, it's that people accused of crimes have rights. Criminals are people convicted of a crime. If you are ever wrongfully accused of crime you will appreciate that distinction.

And statistics show that criminal penalties in the United States are on the average tougher than those imposed by other developed countries. While some commentators will make a big deal of some criminal getting a light sentence, statistics show that this is not the norm.

Answer 4

That is a rash and untrue generalization.

Think about the many people that are wrongly convicted, and then spend years in prison, and are released and not compensated.

Answer 5

No, and you can thank the mental disorder known as "Liberalism" for the huge problem we have in the criminal justice system

Answer 6

Not fair at all.