Victims of crimes have to deal with multiple challenges in the process of trial. Whereas most of these challenges have been addressed the legal framework, the most intriguing issue remains the extent to which they can be involved in the process. Still, the available legal framework does not fully grant the victims with the full rights and privileges to be actively involved in the trial process.
The crime victims may be very vulnerable position because of the proceedings of the trial case. They need protection and support from the state. However, the nature of the case or the condition may jeopardize the safety of the victim and therefore, the Crime Victims' Rights Act develops mechanisms through which their rights can be protected. Victims need to be part of the trial case and should be involved in the whole process in order have them stay convinced that the outcome of the court was just and fair. The act, therefore, underscores the "right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding.” Similarly, the act allows for the victims to be given the opportunity to express them in the proceeding as well have the process in a timely manner. The act provides a robust legal framework that will ensure that the victim does not feel secluded or mistreated by the processes used in the trial. The fundamental guidance of the act remains to ensure that justice is served and every party is involved throughout the process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Crime victims have an essential role to play in the trial process. Through the victim impact statements, the victims are able to persuade the court of the final decision to be made in the pronouncement of the sentence of declaration parole. The action of the victims in critical because it helps the bench to understand the matter before in a holistic manner and understand the impact of their decision on the victims. Cassell (2009) argued that victim impact statements have received such widespread support because they promote justice without interfering with any legitimate interests of criminal defendants. The impact statement is, therefore, one valuable document that helps the honorable judges to have the true understanding of the crime and the prejudices that the victims will suffer in the event that they arrive at a decision a certain way. Interestingly, the introduction of the impact statement does not prejudice the defendant position in any way.
The victim of crime has by law a plethora of rights that they are supposed to enjoy; the right to not notified of the proceeding and the right to participate in the quite important. The right to be notified of the proceeding gives the victim the liberty to choose whether to attend or not. The victim stays aware of the processes of the proceeding and feels that they are part of the process. However, this right comes with several limitations with the critical one being that the participation of the victim is quite limited and therefore, their ability to present their version is jeopardized. Therefore, many victims would opt for the right to participate in the proceeding. Participation gives the victims a pedestal in the case as they are able to present their view through numerous processes allowed by law such as the victim impact statement.
The purpose of the court remains to pronounce the sentences while those in the correction center have their legal obligation limited to ensure the culprits are able to reform in order to be accepted back into the society. However, this responsibility comes with ethical issues attached to them. The statement like ''our job is not to punish” commonly used by the Jury has raised begging question whether it is ethical to pronounce harsh sentence upon fellow man. It is important to note that ethics should be looked from a one-sided perspective; the jury is usually interested in ensuring that the victim gets justice while the culprit suffers consequences for their actions.
''Legal liability issues" have raised serious ethical questions especially on the understanding that sometimes the court blinds itself of the obvious facts and makes decisions based on the legal framework that places responsibility or culpability on certain individuals leading to mistrial or miscarriage of justice. Robertson (2012) argues that the law of negligence functions to maintain civil peace by providing an avenue of recourse for certain interpersonal wrongs. 'Next ethical issues in the statement 'the rules don't apply" is a common phrase in the court. It is meant to establish the circumstances under which a certain legal provision is functional. However, this statement raises ethical standpoints chief among them being whether it is practical to punish an individual with a divergent interpretation of the applicability of a given provision.
Correctional employees at times find themselves in the dilemma of whether to stick to the legal responsibility that comes with the position they hold or adhere to the codes of ethics set. It is still possible that one is able to adhere to both requirements; this can be achieved through several strategies. First, one needs to ensure that they have all the qualifications for such position and also have the accreditation from the relevant bodies. The process of accreditation will help expose the employees in terms of their ethical character. Secondly, by stipulating accountability measures in which every employee will be held responsible for misconduct rather making mistakes a collective responsibility, it will be easy to domesticate the codes of ethics.
At the end of every trial process, justice is seen to have been done based on the feeling of both parties. To enhance chances where victims walk away after the trial feeling that justice has triumphed, their participation is very critical. It is important that the voices of the victims be heard, this will prevent the old practices where the prosecutors assumed full charge of the case while the victim is reduced to the periphery. The fundamental reason for having the victims communicate their view is that in some unfortunate events ''prosecutors sometimes, with reason, did not convey the information to the judge (Davis, Kunruether & Connick 1984). In many cases, prosecutors fail to present to the jury the victim's cases or statement as they were given and in the process, the strength of the case is jeopardized. Therefore, by allowing the victims to have their voice heard in the legal process, their confidence in the process is raised. They are also allowed to put across their arguments on their feeling as well as participate in the decision making process.
Finally, the correction centers are usually supposed to provide a neutral avenue where the all the convicts are able to receive equal treatment from the officers. However, many convicts have decried discrimination that is directed towards them because of their social profiles such as race and religion. The need to have victims' voice heard in the trial would be most efficient and desirable means by which the fears of the discrimination or biases raised because of race, gender or even religion can be eliminated.
References
Cassell, P. (2009). In Defense of Victim Impact Statements. OHIO STATE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, 6 , 611-642. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
Davis, R. C., Kunreuther, F., & Connick, E. (1984). Expanding the Victims Role in the Criminal Court Dispositional Process: The Results of an Experiment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 75 (2), 491. doi:10.2307/1143165
Robertson, B. (2008). Proving Negligence. Common Law World Review, 37 (1), 1-8. doi:10.1350/clwr.2008.37.1.1
