As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Rights of Crime Victims

135

Posts

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    To clarify - the OP is a set of ideal rights that are generally agreed upon by clinics like the one I'm working with this semester. I don't agree with all of them and for some have the opinion that they may be important but hard to work in practice or hard to fit together with certain defendant's rights or prosecutorial discretion.

    Like, psychiatric clinic? Okay, I guess, but I'm more interested in the opinions of legal experts on matters of law.
    No, not at all like a psychiatric clinic. A legal clinic. See the link at the top of the OP for their website. (I guess people hate clicking links in OPs).
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am aware a victim's presence in the courtroom could be damaging to their case. I don't think that matters. A defendant's testimony could be damaging to their case, but they still have the right to testify if they so choose.

    Yes, but see, the court case is not for the benefit of the victim, as has been pointed out numerous times. It is for the benefit of society. The victim is more than welcome to fuck up his case in a civil suit, since that's only relevant to him, but he's not welcome to fuck up the state's case in a criminal suit. I mean, are you saying that if the victim damages the state's case to the point where the defendant gets off, and the later goes on to victimize other people, that's fine because at least the first victim was able to get some shit off his chest?

    You guys keep making this distinction between society and the victim. How is the victim not a part of society? How is the victim's harm not society's harm?

    Medopine on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am aware a victim's presence in the courtroom could be damaging to their case. I don't think that matters. A defendant's testimony could be damaging to their case, but they still have the right to testify if they so choose.
    Yes, but see, the court case is not for the benefit of the victim, as has been pointed out numerous times. It is for the benefit of society. The victim is more than welcome to fuck up his case in a civil suit, since that's only relevant to him, but he's not welcome to fuck up the state's case in a criminal suit. I mean, are you saying that if the victim damages the state's case to the point where the defendant gets off, and the later goes on to victimize other people, that's fine because at least the first victim was able to get some shit off his chest?
    You guys keep making this distinction between society and the victim. How is the victim not a part of society? How is the victim's harm not society's harm?
    Isn't the defendant a part of society, too? How is his harm not society's harm?

    Also, how does not letting the victim into the courtroom harm them?

    Thanatos on
  • stienmanstienman Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Yeah, if only we could charge someone with "manslaughter" or "criminally negligent homicide" in a case like that. Oh, wait, that's exactly what happens in a case like that.

    Yes, I used an extreme example, and it still holds true. Even once the facts of the crime have been determined, the judge still has great latitude in sentencing. If the prosecutor, for whatever reason, is not going to press charges for manslaughter, then the judge has the option to take into account the subsequent death of the victim in sentencing and go for the harsher end of punishment.

    Why shouldn't the judge want to base some of the sentencing on the effect of the crime, be that effect mental or otherwise?
    Good for you. Couldn't you just have easily have felt that they should have been put to death? Why not do that? Maybe you wanted them to be let off altogether, no punishment. Why not do that?

    What probative value do your feelings on what should happen to them have?

    I could have felt and said those things, and they would have been outside the realm of what the judge could/would do. What's your point? Perhaps it affected the judge, perhaps it didn't - that's up to the judge.

    It sounds like you believe that there is never any situation in which these effects should be taken into account for sentencing.
    Yeah, you're making a great argument for your side, here.

    It is true that my account does not prove nor disprove that this right is good.

    Do you believe that there is no possible case where the victim impact statement should be taken into account?
    And I feel that I should have a billion dollars, and a magical rainbow unicorn. Why do you feel that way? What is the objective fact that supports your position, other than "I'd really like that?"

    Sharing an opinion. For the objective reasons, see above. Perhaps you disagree and you believe there is never a case for this particular victim's right. Just as you believe you should be given money and unicorns.
    Yeah, lucky the defense gets a police investigatory team dedicated to proving that their client is innocent, right? Oh, wait. The defense gets access to that sort of thing precisely because they don't have anywhere near the resources the prosecution does. If it's not probative, it doesn't get in at trial.

    Well then here's the rub. What if the victim impact is probative? I'm not going to argue with you about whether a particular case or situation, in this case it seems like you agree with me.

    If the victim impact isn't probitive then it shouldn't impact the sentence.

    If it is probitive, then it should impact the sentence.

    It seems that you might agree with those two statements. Everything else is a matter of degree, and uses the judge's judgement whether it's probitive or not, and that can be appealed by a higher judge if necessary.
    Yeah, criminal proceedings suck for the victim. You know who they also suck for? The defendant. Especially if the defendant is innocent.

    Yep. Did I say otherwise?
    Fine, you want to say something at trial to make yourself feel better, whatever, but pretending it has probative value is fucking retarded. Allowing you to do it as part of the defendant's sentencing is ridiculously fucking unjust.

    Allright. I'll make a deal with you

    If the victim doesn't get to say anything non-probitive, then the defendent doesn't either and vice versa, ok?

    So if the defendant can say, "I'm sorry," then the victim can say, "He really hurt me."

    If the defendant doesn't want non-probitive stuff brought up, then dont' let them bring it up either.

    If your only beef is that he may affect the jury, then you should also be in favor of getting rid of the closing statements, and all other non-factual aspects of the trials.
    Personally, I have no problem with a quick hearing to determine damages after the trial and award restitution. It'd be fast, easy, fair to both sides, and help to relieve the courts of a lot of their caseload.

    Thanks for sharing your wish, but you didn't address the concept that restitution is part of paying for your crime just as jail is. Why would you think that jail time is good and restitution is not?

    Further, it would NOT be fair to both sides. The victim would have to pay more to retrieve what was rightly theirs, and possibly not get it back. How can that possibly be fair?

    Let's make a simple example. Tommy is 4. He takes Sarah's toy. So the teacher makes him sit in time out, but he doesn't have to give Sarah's property back unless Sarah fills out the proper forms, pays a lawyer and court in advance, goes through a lot of waiting and additional, uneccasry trials, and then, because Tommy's not paying up, has to fill out more forms to get the teacher to force Tommy to give up the toy.

    How is that more fair then, "Tommy, go sit in timeout and give the toy back" at the same time?

    Sure, you're perfectly happy with your method, and I'm perfectly happy with how it's done now. You haven't given a good reason not to do it the way its done now.

    -Adam

    stienman on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.

    But if I were somehow seriously injured in the course of the crime I wouldn't be given the choice unless I decided to forgo medical care?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.

    But if I were somehow seriously injured in the course of the crime I wouldn't be given the choice unless I decided to forgo medical care?

    What do you mean?

    Medopine on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.
    But if I were somehow seriously injured in the course of the crime I wouldn't be given the choice unless I decided to forgo medical care?
    Pretty much, yeah.

    Thanatos on
  • stienmanstienman Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    stienman wrote: »
    -Adam

    If you wouldn't mind, could you please not sign your posts? It's sort of a breach of forum etiquette 'round these parts.

    Sorry, I missed this. Can you explain the reasons for this, or at least point to where this rule is posted? I checked the forums rules I could find, and there's nothing about this.

    Given that you're a moderator, perhaps you could make this official if it's not already somewhere I didn't see?

    Also, how is this different than a signature at the bottom of most people's posts? If I put it in my signature line is it ok there?

    Thanks in advance - sorry for the newbie-ness.

    stienman on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.

    But if I were somehow seriously injured in the course of the crime I wouldn't be given the choice unless I decided to forgo medical care?

    No, you would not have to report a crime. However, if your doctors suspected that you had been the victim of a crime and brought the police, the police would have the power to compel you to cooperate with their investigation, just like they would any other witness.

    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.

    Matrijs on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    stienman wrote: »
    Yeah, if only we could charge someone with "manslaughter" or "criminally negligent homicide" in a case like that. Oh, wait, that's exactly what happens in a case like that.
    Yes, I used an extreme example, and it still holds true. Even once the facts of the crime have been determined, the judge still has great latitude in sentencing. If the prosecutor, for whatever reason, is not going to press charges for manslaughter, then the judge has the option to take into account the subsequent death of the victim in sentencing and go for the harsher end of punishment.

    Why shouldn't the judge want to base some of the sentencing on the effect of the crime, be that effect mental or otherwise?
    Hmmm... if the judge can take objective facts into account, why shouldn't he be able to take into account subjective feelings? You're right, I've totally seen the light, now. :roll:
    stienman wrote: »
    Good for you. Couldn't you just have easily have felt that they should have been put to death? Why not do that? Maybe you wanted them to be let off altogether, no punishment. Why not do that?

    What probative value do your feelings on what should happen to them have?
    I could have felt and said those things, and they would have been outside the realm of what the judge could/would do. What's your point? Perhaps it affected the judge, perhaps it didn't - that's up to the judge.

    It sounds like you believe that there is never any situation in which these effects should be taken into account for sentencing.
    That would be accurate, yes. Because, I mean, really, if we start doing that in favor of the victim, don't we have to start doing it in favor of the defendant, too? "Yes, my client participated in the gangrape of the victim, but he was getting sloppy eighths, so by that time, she had become emotionally numb, so he shouldn't be punished as harshly as the guys who went before him."
    stienman wrote: »
    Yeah, you're making a great argument for your side, here.
    It is true that my account does not prove nor disprove that this right is good.

    Do you believe that there is no possible case where the victim impact statement should be taken into account?
    Yup.
    stienman wrote: »
    And I feel that I should have a billion dollars, and a magical rainbow unicorn. Why do you feel that way? What is the objective fact that supports your position, other than "I'd really like that?"
    Sharing an opinion. For the objective reasons, see above. Perhaps you disagree and you believe there is never a case for this particular victim's right. Just as you believe you should be given money and unicorns.
    Can you give a case where it would have probative value? I would support it then.
    stienman wrote: »
    Yeah, lucky the defense gets a police investigatory team dedicated to proving that their client is innocent, right? Oh, wait. The defense gets access to that sort of thing precisely because they don't have anywhere near the resources the prosecution does. If it's not probative, it doesn't get in at trial.
    Well then here's the rub. What if the victim impact is probative? I'm not going to argue with you about whether a particular case or situation, in this case it seems like you agree with me.

    If the victim impact isn't probitive then it shouldn't impact the sentence.

    If it is probitive, then it should impact the sentence.

    It seems that you might agree with those two statements. Everything else is a matter of degree, and uses the judge's judgement whether it's probitive or not, and that can be appealed by a higher judge if necessary.
    Victim impact statements are inherently prejudicial, and lack probative value, by their very definition.
    stienman wrote: »
    Yeah, criminal proceedings suck for the victim. You know who they also suck for? The defendant. Especially if the defendant is innocent.
    Yep. Did I say otherwise?
    No, but you seem to be making the argument that because they suck for the victim, we should do things to fuck over the defendant. If I were making the argument the opposite direction, you would rightfully call it ridiculous.
    stienman wrote: »
    Fine, you want to say something at trial to make yourself feel better, whatever, but pretending it has probative value is fucking retarded. Allowing you to do it as part of the defendant's sentencing is ridiculously fucking unjust.
    Allright. I'll make a deal with you

    If the victim doesn't get to say anything non-probitive, then the defendent doesn't either and vice versa, ok?

    So if the defendant can say, "I'm sorry," then the victim can say, "He really hurt me."

    If the defendant doesn't want non-probitive stuff brought up, then dont' let them bring it up either.

    If your only beef is that he may affect the jury, then you should also be in favor of getting rid of the closing statements, and all other non-factual aspects of the trials.
    Showing remorse for the crime is probative, just as showing a lack of remorse is probative.
    stienman wrote: »
    Personally, I have no problem with a quick hearing to determine damages after the trial and award restitution. It'd be fast, easy, fair to both sides, and help to relieve the courts of a lot of their caseload.
    Thanks for sharing your wish, but you didn't address the concept that restitution is part of paying for your crime just as jail is. Why would you think that jail time is good and restitution is not?

    Further, it would NOT be fair to both sides. The victim would have to pay more to retrieve what was rightly theirs, and possibly not get it back. How can that possibly be fair?

    Let's make a simple example. Tommy is 4. He takes Sarah's toy. So the teacher makes him sit in time out, but he doesn't have to give Sarah's property back unless Sarah fills out the proper forms, pays a lawyer and court in advance, goes through a lot of waiting and additional, uneccasry trials, and then, because Tommy's not paying up, has to fill out more forms to get the teacher to force Tommy to give up the toy.

    How is that more fair then, "Tommy, go sit in timeout and give the toy back" at the same time?

    Sure, you're perfectly happy with your method, and I'm perfectly happy with how it's done now. You haven't given a good reason not to do it the way its done now.
    You... you realize that when I say "a quick hearing," I mean "okay, sentencing is done, let's move on to damages, <arguments and brief testimony> Okay, this much is awarded, done," right? [/QUOTE]

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    stienman wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    stienman wrote: »
    -Adam
    If you wouldn't mind, could you please not sign your posts? It's sort of a breach of forum etiquette 'round these parts.
    Sorry, I missed this. Can you explain the reasons for this, or at least point to where this rule is posted? I checked the forums rules I could find, and there's nothing about this.

    Given that you're a moderator, perhaps you could make this official if it's not already somewhere I didn't see?

    Also, how is this different than a signature at the bottom of most people's posts? If I put it in my signature line is it ok there?

    Thanks in advance - sorry for the newbie-ness.
    It's one of the reasons we recommend people post before lurking. It's mostly because that's what the signature line is there for, and the signature doesn't get quoted when people use the "quote" button.

    Thanatos on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    I've seen the claim that there is a legal obligation to report a crime if you're aware of one pop up several times in several contexts. Is that true or does the victim of a crime retain the right not to report it if they find the risks and costs associated with a trial not to be worth the uncertain prospect of securing a conviction?
    There are what are called "mandatory reporters." Mostly educational professionals, social workers, officers of the court, and medical professionals who have to report cases of suspected abuse by caregivers over the people they're caring for. There are probably other "mandatory reporters" that I'm not intimately familiar with, but, in general, no, you are not compelled to report a crime.

    But if I were somehow seriously injured in the course of the crime I wouldn't be given the choice unless I decided to forgo medical care?

    What do you mean?

    I mean if in the course of committing some crime against me, someone shoots me say in the leg, and I don't want to report it for the kinds of reasons I described above, I would have to either treat my own gunshot wound or have a back-alley clinic do it, T/F?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.

    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.
    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.

    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.

    Notice that I didn't say that it was in society's interest to prosecute every crime. Instead, I said that it's in society's interest to have all crimes reported - leaving the discretion about prosecution up to the prosecutor.

    Matrijs on
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Pitching in my 2c here for what its worth. Years ago, I had a pretty screwed up situation growing up with an abusive parent - Sometimes people would see/hear us kids getting our asses kicked and would call the cops. We were far too terrified to tell anyone about our situation (it would likely get us in even more trouble @ home), but when the cops found out, the state pressed charges whether we liked it or not - the end result was a positive for us (jail time, went to live w/ other parent) I suppose some of our rights were waived in a case like that, but the end it was a benefit for society. I have heard that it is the same way in domestic abuse cases - oftentimes the spouse will not press charges but the state will, and I think the end result is a net benefit for society.

    MikeMcSomething on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.
    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.

    As I understand it, the hospital has to report that a stabbing/shooting/whatever happened, but the victim isn't legally required to talk about it. He'll probably be strongly urged to do so, but he's not going to be prosecuted if he doesn't.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.
    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.

    There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.

    There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.

    These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.
    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
    As I understand it, the hospital has to report that a stabbing/shooting/whatever happened, but the victim isn't legally required to talk about it. He'll probably be strongly urged to do so, but he's not going to be prosecuted if he doesn't.
    The victim actually can be legally compelled to do so. He can, however, plead the 5th.

    Thanatos on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    This actually brings us back to the society vs. victim question. The interests of society and the victim could quite clearly be divergent here. It's certainly possible that the victim might have an interest in refusing to report a crime, but society never has an interest in allowing a victim (or any other witness) to refuse to report a crime.
    You might want to narrow that claim down to a degree where it's not patently ridiculous. It's not in society's best interest to report/prosecute every crime that is committed, if it were there would be no room for discretion anywhere within the system when in fact discretion has an explicitly constructed role in every component of the criminal justice system.
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
    As I understand it, the hospital has to report that a stabbing/shooting/whatever happened, but the victim isn't legally required to talk about it. He'll probably be strongly urged to do so, but he's not going to be prosecuted if he doesn't.
    The victim actually can be legally compelled to do so. He can, however, plead the 5th.

    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I think if there was a switch the Supreme Court could flip to get every criminal on the stands, they would. I cited a couple situations where the victims rights are actually waived for the benefit of society.

    MikeMcSomething on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.

    Matrijs on
  • stienmanstienman Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Can you give a case where it would have probative value? I would support it then.

    I doubt I could think of one that would satisfy you - at this point we simply diverge. You don't think that the impact a crime has on a victim should be used by the judge to vary the sentence within the sentencing guidelines, and I do.
    Showing remorse for the crime is probative, just as showing a lack of remorse is probative.

    Saying that one is sorry or remorseful does not prove remorse, therefore is not probitive, therefore is as useful in varying the sentence as the victim saying they are still in pain.
    You... you realize that when I say "a quick hearing," I mean "okay, sentencing is done, let's move on to damages, <arguments and brief testimony> Okay, this much is awarded, done," right?

    No, I did not realize that, but why are you adamant against restitution being part of the sentence? It seems reasonable that to 'pay' for the crime one should return what was taken and undo what was done.

    Why should it universally be considered a seperate issue, even if there's no extra paperwork, etc?

    stienman on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.

    What's this now?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    What's this now?

    Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.

    Matrijs on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.

    And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    What's this now?

    Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.
    Yup. It's a risky strategy, though. Blanket immunity like that is dangerous. If the dude then gets on the stand and says "yeah, I killed a bunch of people," the DA won't be winning re-election.

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.

    And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.

    No, they go to jail for obstruction of justice. Or are held as a material witness. You do not have the right to refuse to testify unless your testimony would incriminate yourself.

    Matrijs on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    What's this now?

    Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.
    Yup. It's a risky strategy, though. Blanket immunity like that is dangerous. If the dude then gets on the stand and says "yeah, I killed a bunch of people," the DA won't be winning re-election.

    That would be awesome though. I would make something up just to be spiteful. "Oh and the DA's mother's body is buried under his porch."

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    stienman wrote: »
    Can you give a case where it would have probative value? I would support it then.
    I doubt I could think of one that would satisfy you - at this point we simply diverge. You don't think that the impact a crime has on a victim should be used by the judge to vary the sentence within the sentencing guidelines, and I do.
    I think the factual impact it has on the victim (broken bones, loss of life or limb, financial damages) should absolutely be used to vary the sentence. I just don't think how the victim feels about the sentence should be used to change it.
    stienman wrote: »
    Showing remorse for the crime is probative, just as showing a lack of remorse is probative.
    Saying that one is sorry or remorseful does not prove remorse, therefore is not probitive, therefore is as useful in varying the sentence as the victim saying they are still in pain.
    If the victim is still feeling physical pain, then that will be absolutely used to determine sentencing.
    stienman wrote: »
    You... you realize that when I say "a quick hearing," I mean "okay, sentencing is done, let's move on to damages, <arguments and brief testimony> Okay, this much is awarded, done," right?
    No, I did not realize that, but why are you adamant against restitution being part of the sentence? It seems reasonable that to 'pay' for the crime one should return what was taken and undo what was done.

    Why should it universally be considered a seperate issue, even if there's no extra paperwork, etc?
    I think you're thinking of someone else, because I've said several times now that I have no problem with restitution being assigned as part of a criminal punishment.

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    What's this now?

    Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.
    Yup. It's a risky strategy, though. Blanket immunity like that is dangerous. If the dude then gets on the stand and says "yeah, I killed a bunch of people," the DA won't be winning re-election.

    That would be awesome though. I would make something up just to be spiteful. "Oh and the DA's mother's body is buried under his porch."

    Amusingly enough, if you lied, they could charge you with perjury, because the immunity only extends to the actions you are testifying about, not the actual act of testifying.

    This all would make for a great episode of Law and Order.

    Matrijs on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.

    There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.

    These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.

    Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?
    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.
    And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.
    Or they just testify.

    *shrug*

    The justice system sucks. It's just the best we've got.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
    There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.
    These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.
    Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
    Really? You think we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state?

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2008

    Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.

    In many jurisdictions, the DA is an elected official. Don't like him? Vote him out.

    Matrijs on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    What's this now?

    Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.
    Yup. It's a risky strategy, though. Blanket immunity like that is dangerous. If the dude then gets on the stand and says "yeah, I killed a bunch of people," the DA won't be winning re-election.

    That would be awesome though. I would make something up just to be spiteful. "Oh and the DA's mother's body is buried under his porch."

    Look up "Karla Homolka" on Wikipedia.

    Nova_C on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?

    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.

    And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.

    No, they go to jail for obstruction of justice. Or are held as a material witness. You do not have the right to refuse to testify unless your testimony would incriminate yourself.

    How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
    There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.
    These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.
    Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
    Really? You think we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state?

    If I did, I would be arguing in favor of telling them things, which is the line where trust becomes relevant.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In any situation, or only in certain situations?
    If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.
    And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.
    No, they go to jail for obstruction of justice. Or are held as a material witness. You do not have the right to refuse to testify unless your testimony would incriminate yourself.
    How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
    This very rarely happens outside of people participating in organized crime.

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.