Why does the American "Justice" system think the criminal deserves more rights than the victims?

Answer 1

We protect the rights of our criminals because our justice system is derived from English law and the Magna Carta. For centuries, English rulers could arrest people without trying them, force them to testify against themselves, their homes could be invaded and anything found there could be used against them. They did not have the right to a trial, or an attorney.

After hundreds of years of putting up with this, the English people came up with the Magna Carta, so that English monarchs could no longer commit these kinds of offenses. This is where our law, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights comes from.

Criminals are given rights so that you and I, and yes even the criminals, could be safe from the overzealousness of the police and courts.

Today, every civilized nation in the world grants these rights to their criminals. If you don't like it, you should move to Iran or China, where these rights are not so easy to come by, I would be careful though, you never know when the police might come knocking....

Answer 2

The system is not about defendant versus victim. The system is set up such that it's government versus defendant. The victim is not really part of the equation. Both defendants and victims lose in this system, in my opinion. It is the state or federal government that convicts and ultimately punishes a person. That person loses because they get the wrath of the government, which is often harsh. The victim also loses because they do not get any closure other than a conviction; they get no apology, no closure, no demonstration of regret by the perpetrator.

Your question, though, reveals a fundamental flaw in the American justice system - the fact that the government is often the only side that matters. Too often, both defendants and victims and they needs are ignored by cold, impersonal district attorneys who seek only a conviction, and not 'justice' or 'fairness' in the truest sense of the word.

Answer 3

Because in other cultures, those that were/are arrested are ASSumed to B guilty w/o a means to prove they aren't. First you have to define what a criminal is, then you must determine that if a law that was broken is Unconstitutional.

The beauty of the USA is that we as citizens can dispute laws as unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Look at it this way, would you rather put innocent people in prison to put all the guilty people in prison, or would you rather allow some guilty people to slip through "technicalities" in order to reduce or eliminate the innocent that are in prison?

Our Justice system is based on the idea that the Government doesn't abuse its power to put innocent people in prison, that we have rights as citizens from this abusive power.

Victims have another course of justice and that's through the Civil courts which has a lower standard of proof required for the Plaintiff to win. Although, what's the sense of suing your attacker if s/he has no assets???

Best thing for people with this same question is to take a Criminal Justice procedure class or a US Constitution class at your local college.

Answer 4

I don't think the ciminal justice system thinks the criminal justice system think the criminal has more rights than the Victim; its just that our system is based on: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!! and if the criminal can't afford an attorney; by Law, they have to be appointed one!! I will agree that it does seem that they have more rights, sutle difference

Answer 5

They aren't criminals until they're convicted.

The framers of the Constitution were concerned that government, having a monopoly on the sanctioned use of coercive force, would tend to abuse that power if it could.

The accused are afforded various rights therefore, to reduce the likelihood that political power will be used to persecute the innocent.

Whatever rights the victims have, I doubt you could argue they have the right to convict an innocent man just to make themselves feel better.

Answer 6

As long as the US follows the guidelines in the Geneva Convention, I believe he will be treated fairly. But once again the Bush administration can interpret these rules as the seem fit, like in the instance of Gitmo and Abu Graib. How was he interrogated is going to be a large factor in his case . Also, I think we need an international committee, overseeing his trial.

Answer 7

It definitely seems that way. Like everything else, we take care of nitpicking problems and let big problems get out of hand.
I am a liberal, but I'm also for cruel and unusual punishment after someone is proven to have committed an atrocious crime.
We need to crack down on some of the softie nonsense and give more support for victims.

Answer 8

I dont beleive the "justice" system knows the difference themselves, between innocence and what actually defines the actions of crimminals. In recent news lately, i have seen so many cases, particularly involving young and old black males you were sent to jail for 20 years for stealling bubble gum, while some other races get out scot free for literally killing someone. You is really serving us justice

Answer 9

Its a load of rubbish. Victims dont get enough of the right support mental health and councelling isnt the right path if they wante dit theyd get it themselves. Criminals should have no rights - at all.

Answer 10

It started in the 1930's with the appointment of "many" liberal judges by the Roosevelt administration and continued for the next 40 years as the democrats appointed more and more liberal federal and supreme court judges