Victim Rights
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning victim rights. This is an important debate to victims of violent crimes since victims deserve justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. The two positions argue whether or not a victim's rights should take priority over the rights of the accused. Both viewpoints have valid points warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that criminals should be held accountable for crimes they have commited. In contrast, evidence suggests that the accused are not always guilty, therefore, they need more protection from the law. While both sides of the argument have valid points, the claim that victim's rights should not trump an accused person's rights is …show more content…
To illustrate this point, if a victim's rights take precedence over the accused person's rights, it will shift the trial from a trial of guilt to a trial of punishment. Additionally, if a trial is rushed and key evidence mised, this could also lead to false impronment. In short, the accused deserves the benefit of the dought if a fair trial is to be held. The final applicable point to make in favor of the position that the victim's rights should not outweigh the accused person's rights is that victims are not always credible. As illustration of this, a “victim” may claim that a crime has been done to him or her in order to get payback. As an additional point, a victim's story may innacurate or inconsistent. In brief, before being tried for a crime, a defendant should receive his or her full right in order to be protected against false claims. The counterargument that the defendant's rights should take a back seat to the victim's rights has a valid point. For example, the accused person, even if innocent, put themselves in a risky situation, something he or she should have been aware of. This point, though valid, does not make the most compelling argument. The position that victim's rights should not come first makes the most cogent
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning victim rights. This is an important debate to victims of violent crimes since victims deserve justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. The two positions argue whether or not a victim's rights should take priority over the rights of the accused. Both viewpoints have valid points warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that criminals should be held accountable for crimes they have commited. In contrast, evidence suggests that the accused are not always guilty, therefore, they need more protection from the law. While both sides of the argument have valid points, the claim that victim's rights should not trump an accused person's rights is …show more content…
To illustrate this point, if a victim's rights take precedence over the accused person's rights, it will shift the trial from a trial of guilt to a trial of punishment. Additionally, if a trial is rushed and key evidence mised, this could also lead to false impronment. In short, the accused deserves the benefit of the dought if a fair trial is to be held. The final applicable point to make in favor of the position that the victim's rights should not outweigh the accused person's rights is that victims are not always credible. As illustration of this, a “victim” may claim that a crime has been done to him or her in order to get payback. As an additional point, a victim's story may innacurate or inconsistent. In brief, before being tried for a crime, a defendant should receive his or her full right in order to be protected against false claims. The counterargument that the defendant's rights should take a back seat to the victim's rights has a valid point. For example, the accused person, even if innocent, put themselves in a risky situation, something he or she should have been aware of. This point, though valid, does not make the most compelling argument. The position that victim's rights should not come first makes the most cogent