Letters to the Editor
-
You either respect the U.S. Constitution...
...or you don't.
If I am robbed, beaten, had my identity swiped online, or some other crime, I have to face my accuser in court. I have been there--it sucks. It is painful, it means dredging it all up again and again. But I knew to argue otherwise was to invite a kangaroo court, to disrespect the U.S. Constitution and all it stands for. To do otherwise is to kick wide open the door and allow all manner of heresay. Isn't the system of justice bad enough under the best of circumstances?
My heart to the victim of any crime. And my mind and soul to the the U.S. Constitution. To argue any exception is to make second-class citizens of the people you choose to exclude from their responsibility to uphold as fair a trial as possible for all participants.
It's time we stopped this silly, disrespectful, immature practice of not printing the name of the accuser next to the name of the accused, regardless of the gender, age, crime, or circumstances. The full story or none at all.
Before you start your flamefest, think about it. I think the rest of our citizenry could use the wake-up call.
-
Scalia
I hate to say it, but I'm with Scalia on this one. The constitution is pretty specific about this, so there should be no exceptions. If exceptions are needed, then the constitution can be amended.
Although I'm very liberal on most issues, I believe the 'strict constructionists' are correct as to how the constitution should be interpreted. If the constitution doesn't say what we think it should, then that's why there's a method for amending it. Otherwise, judges become legislators, and that completely undermines our system of checks and balances.
(Of course, the 'strict constructionists' are usually just as ready to legislate from the bench as the next judge; that doesn't change the fact that their stated version of reality is actually true, whether they really believe in it or not.)
-
The Confrontation Clause
My understanding of the purpose of this clause is to allow people to defend themselves by presenting the evidence against them to them; i.e., the jury shouldn't have information that the defense cannot offer rebuttal against. I don't see any reason why it should apply against videotaped testimony of any kind (remember, this stuff didn't exist when the constitution was written). That does not, by itself, turn the court into any sort of kangaroo.
-
Facing the abuser
is what is needed to be done. The person who was abused is of course scared, but are they any more scared than someone testifing against the mafia, the person who raped them, or the person that attempted to murder them? If a person really is serious about putting the person who says they love them, then beats the shit out of them, in jail; then the prosecutors need to convince the victim to come forward just like in any other case. I personally have sympathy for people who got into a situation that is harmful and they can't see a way out for themselves, but if someone hands you one and you don't take it, then I can't really feel sorry for you after the person gets released and harms you again. There has to be a point where their determination to be safe and live should kick in.
I don't agree with publishing names of victims, too many people like to blame the victim especially when it comes to sex or domestic abuse claims. The victim is the victim and should not be tormented by the media or others seeking retribution on behalf of the defendant. The Leflave case, where the teacher who has bipolar was having sex with a 14 yr old. He is apparently so harmed from what happened, he does not want to go to and testify in trial, luckily for him Leflave plead guilty and will be under house arrest. Exactly why do I need to know the name of the boy she took advantage of? Why should his future dating partners or employers be able to find out something he may not be willing to share?
People accused of crimes have loads of protections, lets not take away one of the few for a victim. Plus there is a stigma attached to having been raped or been in an abusive relationship, I have told people I was raped before and have men tell me I'm lying right to my face, even though they weren't there, they didn't know what happened. I would hate for someone to google my name after meeting me and finding out the violations others have perpetrated on me. The person who did the crime should be carrying that around for life, not the victim.
-
Society's Interest
If a person really is serious about putting the person who says they love them, then beats the shit out of them, in jail; then the prosecutors need to convince the victim to come forward just like in any other case.
What if they're NOT "serious" about it? That doesn't necessarily make the perp's behavior any less of a crime. What if murder victims had to press charges? Should we let all murderers off the hook because their victims can't testify against them?
-
Pyrian
Asking if a murder victim could come to trial, the body is the evidence. Without a body, the prosecution has practically no chance of getting a conviction. The murder victim IS there.
A defendant has the RIGHT to face their accuser or the evidence that points to their guilt, their attorney has a right to question your motives or the validity of the evidence.
It is the same in the case of domestic violence, the prosecution needs evidence to convict, part of that evidence is the testimony of the victim. If the victim only says that as far as they will go is a 911 call and a statement to the police, that person could be lying. This helps with reasonable doubt. I don't think that a 911 call for help automatically means a crime was commited. I knew a girl in high school once, she was bat shit crazy and every time her parents wouldn't do what she wanted she'd throw shit around the room, scream, scratch herself and threaten to call 911 if they didn't give in, she'd brag about it every time she got a new toy or curfew extension.
I personally don't know what goes on in the minds of abused people who refuse to testify against the person who hurt them, but we can't game the system in favor of saying a 911 call is all you need to convict someone of a crime.
Also if someone beats the shit out of their wife in public, then no, you don't need her becauase there are plenty of other witnesses to the assualt. When it is a he said she said case, without witnesses, you need the abused to come forward and tell what happened, without it, you can't be sure the defendant commited a crime.
People get away with crimes all the time because there is no evidence, it doesn't mean the prosecutor didn't try or the victim didn't care enough, but I still remain, if you can't gather the courage to get into a courtroom and say what happened to you, knowing that the person will get off without it, then that's your conscience to live with, not the legal system's. Testimony is part of the evidentuary process.