NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1101/p02s01-usju.html

For a long time it's been accepted practice to video tape child witnesses in molestation cases. While I generally agree with the right to directly cross examine witnesses, I can't see forcing a child to undergo that trauma. This could really fuck them up. Whose rights trump whose?

Whose rights trump whose?
The person who is fighting for his life and who, even if he wins, has still had his life ruined by wild speculation and a blame-happy public that likes nothing more than a victim it can feel good about "protecting."

What should be: Victim's rights trumping the accused.

Sad fact in human society: Accused's rights trumping the victim

What should be: Victim's rights trumping the accused.

Sad fact in human society: Accused's rights trumping the victim

I totally disagree with you. An accused, unconvicted person has the right to confront his accuser - always. Otherwise we just make two victims - the first victim and the wrongfully convicted accused.

I totally disagree with you. An accused, unconvicted person has the right to confront his accuser - always. Otherwise we just make two victims - the first victim and the wrongfully convicted accused.

I agree, the whole point of the trial is to determin the guilt of the accused not for the satisfaction of the victims or public.

Both their rights should be equal

I totally disagree with you. An accused, unconvicted person has the right to confront his accuser - always. Otherwise we just make two victims - the first victim and the wrongfully convicted accused.
I agree with you.

Both their rights should be equal

It can't be, realistically. The accused has the entire might of the prosecutor (i.e. the government) against him, while the accuser - the victim - is in reality only a witness in the process.

Im afraid that even the very word 'victim' here is presumtuous. Their rights should be equal untill it is proven that the 'victim' is indeed a victim and the accused is indeed a criminal.

The problem is the demonisation of the accused by the media before and during a trial, which affects the publics ability to think objectively about the rights the accused has.

What should be: Victim's rights trumping the accused.

Sad fact in human society: Accused's rights trumping the victim

Because it worked so well in the past with all those innocent people that were imprisoned or killed for failing to prove a negative?

Logics 101. You can't prove a negative. So the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove a positive - a crime.

Sorry. My bad.

Bet none of you ever had to watch your 12 year old sister testify about her rape in open court. But this may make me to close to the subject.

Bet none of you ever had to watch your 12 year old sister testify about her rape in open court. But this may make me to close to the subject.

I agree that that would be a horrible thing to go through (not from personal experience, mind you).

However, would it be worse than the Actual Event? I really don't think so.

And, at the risk of sounding callous (I really don't mean to), isn't she going to have to 'talk' about it anyways? Not that a child (and as far as I'm concerned, a 12 year old is still a child) can necessarily talk about it in the most therapeutic manner.

The reliability of a "child's" tesitmony is another matter altogether (maybe less so at age 12)...

And as emotionally scarring as it may be, the accused still has rights...as someone else pointed out, the bulk of power lies with the prosecution/government.

Still an altogether shitty situation, however. Life can sure be nasty...

Not that it isn't extremely traumatic for the alleged victim, but if there's enough doubt about what happened that they need the alleged victim to testify, then that's exactly what needs to happen or we run the risk of repeating tragedies like the Salem witch trials.

Suppose that we prevent the alleged victim from testifying, and the accused is put to death (I'm using an extreme on purpose) wrongfully. What sort of trauma would the victim undergo after learning that an innocent was put to death because they didn't (or weren't allowed to) open their mouths?

Our (USA) justice system works on the principle that it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to imprison one innocent. The presumption of innocence is an inextricable part of this ideal. The system doesn't fail when a criminal goes free, the system fails when an innocent goes to jail.
Having to testify about your rape in open court is probably traumatic, but it surely isn't more traumatic than the rape itself. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that NOTHING is more traumatic than being raped.
Child molestation is the one crime where the system fails most. The mere accusation can end careers and relationships, cause one to lose their own children, and generally ruin their life - whether or not the accused is guilty. Just ask Virginia McMartin (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mcmartin_daycare/1.html) It is probably better to be actually guilty and convicted, as being innocent and aquitted changes NOTHING. If after reading the story, you still believe Ray Buckley did all the things he was accused of (like, for example, FLYING) then my point has been proven. If you don't believe the accusations, then why would you not want the accuser to be cross-examined?
It is perfectly human to identify with the victim. But only by identifying with the accused as well can we hope for justice.

The rights of the accused. Absolutely.

Just a thought- a lot of parents may choose to let a pedophile go free rather than force their child through the trauma of being cross-examined in open court.

Just a thought- a lot of parents may choose to let a pedophile go free rather than force their child through the trauma of being cross-examined in open court.

As a future parent (not one now, but soon), I can only envision that scenario if I'm planning my own justice (not that I'm advocating that. Not that I'm not advocating that).

**EDIT** which is why we have a legal system, as opposed to vigilante justice.

As a future parent (not one now, but soon), I can only envision that scenario if I'm planning my own justice (not that I'm advocating that. Not that I'm not advocating that).

**EDIT** which is why we have a legal system, as opposed to vigilante justice.

I do know of someone who did exactly that and took a baseball bat to the guy who had been molesting his children. While what he did was wrong, the courts didn't seem to take into account the pedophile acts to provoke it.

Bet none of you ever had to watch your 12 year old sister testify about her rape in open court. But this may make me to close to the subject.
And I bet you've never been falsely accused of rape. Well, neither have I, but I gather its a bitch, especially when the accused have a bunch of victim's rights advocates trying to strip away what few rights they still have left.
The reason why children, and especially children, need to be cross examined is their great weakness to the use of leading questions. That, and the fact that people are remarkably stupid when it comes to dealing with those below 16 and are willing to buy anything they say.
Innocence of youth, my ass.
Just ask Virginia McMartin (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mcmartin_daycare/1.html)
Just a sidenote: "Judy, separated from her husband, mentally unbalanced and struggling to make ends meet, became obsessed with Matthew's anus." is, quite possibly, the greatest sentence ever written about anything.

I think we should take the suspect, wisk him out of the country, question and torture him, then deny him a lawyer. Oh wait never mind. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees;_ylt=AubBiAGYuQmG0P0wKbCZfulg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Okay, I can see the other side. I have a relative who was convicted of molesting an eight year old. I was at the trial. It broke my heart to see the girl testify, though. I still can't help wishing there was another way. That's twice I've seen a little girl go through that, and it's like a second rape.

Okay, I can see the other side. I have a relative who was convicted of molesting an eight year old. I was at the trial. It broke my heart to see the girl testify, though. I still can't help wishing there was another way. That's twice I've seen a little girl go through that, and it's like a second rape.

But there is a second way. You could avoid the "open court" issue by performing the crossexamination in private, and videotape it to show the jury. One room, a camera, a judge, two lawyers and the accuser. That way, the interests of the accused is ensured, and the accuser don't have to go through it all in an open court in front of so many strange people.

Just a thought?

Our (USA) justice system works on the principle that it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to imprison one innocent. The presumption of innocence is an inextricable part of this ideal. The system doesn't fail when a criminal goes free, the system fails when an innocent goes to jail.
Having to testify about your rape in open court is probably traumatic, but it surely isn't more traumatic than the rape itself. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that NOTHING is more traumatic than being raped.
Child molestation is the one crime where the system fails most. The mere accusation can end careers and relationships, cause one to lose their own children, and generally ruin their life - whether or not the accused is guilty. Just ask Virginia McMartin (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mcmartin_daycare/1.html) It is probably better to be actually guilty and convicted, as being innocent and aquitted changes NOTHING. If after reading the story, you still believe Ray Buckley did all the things he was accused of (like, for example, FLYING) then my point has been proven. If you don't believe the accusations, then why would you not want the accuser to be cross-examined?
It is perfectly human to identify with the victim. But only by identifying with the accused as well can we hope for justice.

Tough story. I had heard about it, but never read about the details.

Thanks for the link.

Sadly, childrens testimonies are nearly unreliable even in cases of simple eye witness situations.
Its been clearly demonstrated a number of times, that a child's testimony can be lead, and that many children will often lie under oath to please the person doing the questioning.

They dont lie out of malice, but rather out of eagerness to please the lawyer/judge/parent.

They will tell you what they think you want to hear.

So, if you repeatedly ask them "did the bad man touch you?", often, they will reply "yes", even when the man did not.

This is why a person should always have the right to confront thier accuser.

*snip*

I fully agree.

Sadly, childrens testimonies are nearly unreliable even in cases of simple eye witness situations.
Its been clearly demonstrated a number of times, that a child's testimony can be lead, and that many children will often lie under oath to please the person doing the questioning.

They dont lie out of malice, but rather out of eagerness to please the lawyer/judge/parent.

They will tell you what they think you want to hear.

So, if you repeatedly ask them "did the bad man touch you?", often, they will reply "yes", even when the man did not.

This is why a person should always have the right to confront thier accuser.


Exactly.

The rights of the accused have to be absolute and unequivocal - innocent until proven guilty, &c., in all cases.

No possible harm from 'reliving the event,' whatever that means, can outweigh the harm of the enormous injustice of falsely conviction people of a crime so harshly punished.

Interesting idea. That would be a more practical middle ground, though it probably wouldn't quite make it easy to testify at least it'd be easier than it would be otherwise.
It is a difficult and delicate question, but I think it's one way to go. It wouldn't hinder the accuser from "reliving the event" with all that entails though - but that's difficult to avoid anyway, and at least the accuser don't have to see the accused when telling his/her story.


Why did nobody else comment on that idea?
Dunno.

I fully agree.

Then the solution is that you cannot prosecute the accused - unless you have compelling physical evidence.

Exactly.

The rights of the accused have to be absolute and unequivocal - innocent until proven guilty, &c., in all cases.

No possible harm from 'reliving the event,' whatever that means, can outweigh the harm of the enormous injustice of falsely conviction people of a crime so harshly punished.

The thing is, I see it as a different question. Society has to deal with the harm that comes from "reliving the event" by providing access to councellors and professionals that can treat the accuser/victim. Those considerations must, unfortunately, carry little weight in the justice system.