Some reasons why victims’ rights can and should be progressive
I was disappointed to see that Barry Boss in this Washington Post commentary and Jeralyn in this post at TalkLeft have celebrated the start of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week (details here) by reinforcing the old trope that there is a zero-sum game between the interests/rights of crime victims and the interests/rights of criminal defendants.
The reality of victims’ rights and interests are much too varied and nuanced to assume that giving more rights to victims will be detrimental to the interests of criminal defendants. In fact, there are lots of reasons why those generally concerned about harsh and oppressive criminal justice systems (and especially harsh and oppressive sentencing systems) ought to embrace and extol victims’ rights Let me explain with some particulars:
1. Some minor crimes that can often lead to unduly long sentences do not have obvious victims (e.g., minor drug, gun, and obscenity possession charges, underage consensual sex). Greater emphasis on the rights and interests of real crime victims could and likely would lead to less emphasis on unduly harsh prison terms for minor crimes without obvious victims (like Morton Berger’s 200 years for downloading child porn in Arizona or Genarlow Wilson’s 10 years for consensual oral sex in Georgia).
2. Many crime victims seek punishments and remedies that are much less harsh than sought by the state. Victims of economic crimes often would rather have defendants out working and paying restitution rather than rotting in a prison cell. Also, as noted in stories discussed here and here, some crime victims will actually make formal and public pleas for leniency (though prosecutors will rarely give voice to these victims).
3. Victims’ interests seem to be at the very center of the restorative justice movement, which seem to me to be a pretty progressive (though perhaps unduly optimistic) effort to reform modern criminal justice realities.
Some recent related posts: