No way dude??

rdhull said:

Oh I have to say I am disappointed.
I really was looking forward to one of your
"HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OR SARCASM!?!?!" replies

FunkyStrange said:

I...am fallable , yes it's true

I have to admit, you have me slightly confused. It's hard to think of what crimes the victim wouldn't want to press charges, but i'm sure there are exceptions...

Well to tell the truth, I wouldn't have a clue about South Korea myself... I'm just talking about western countries in general... what exactly do you mean by CONFRONT them ?

'The right to confront your accusers' meaning our court systems allows the accused to know who their accusers are by making sure they appear in court and holding them accountable for their statements based on facts for and against the suspect.

I agree with that. but that is only the case if you intend to press charges, is it not ? Once you tell the police,
"I saw blah blah... " you can tell the police "here are the names of the witnesses", Then the police get the job done.
THEY Contact the witnesses, get statements , whatever they need to do. Your part is done. If they need you to go to court as a witness so be it, but still my original point is the victim shouldn't have the choice to decide the fate of the criminal.

In almost all felony cases, the police will do the follow up investigation asking witnesses for information, get statements from the accusers, get evidence attempting to prove crimes, etc.
Of course, every crime has it's own sentence based on legislation passed by our elected representatives so ultimately, the public decides the fate of said criminal. If the victim chooses to not press charges, although a huge responsibility, it is up to an individual to protect themselves or others from future crimes of the same nature.


"Sounds odd, but don't you think suspects have a right to defend themselves? Many times, the complaintants have alterier motives, and the defendant's attorney can address that in court. "

Not odd at all...Of course they have a right to defend themselves, everyone does. If the supposed victim DOES have ulterior motives, then that would probably come out in court. Still it shouldn't be the CHOICE of the victim to have the whole thing taken to court in the first place.

I can see your point, but as a victim, would you want to be forced to press charges against, say, a family member who meant you no harm? A mentally disabled person? An accidental crime? Kids and young adults break neighbors' windows all the time. Would you want the police to pursue the matter every time or would you rather deal with them on your own terms, talking to them or their parents? If all else fails, you call the police and go from there.

"With absolute proof of the suspect's guilt--i.e. the suspect admitting guilt, a video showing the suspect's face while throwing the brick--the complaintant won't have any problem finding the suspect guilty."

I agree 100% but once again the alleged victim should not have ULTIMATE POWER over whether they are all even in the court that day or not.

I guess i'm confused by what you mean ultimate power...who else but the victim would you want to have ultimate power? The state, your government? Again, this would lead to fascism if we let the state decide which crimes went to court and which didn't. Ultimately, we have self determination and have to be responsible for our own actions, and keep others accountable for their own actions--especially when they affect or harm us. Western cultures emphasize the individual's autonomy, and our laws reflect that philosophy.

Why do individuals get to decide the option of pressing charges, yet have NO SAY whatsoever in the outcome of the trial ?

Because we live in a civilized society. We have elected representatives that we feel are responsible and educated on the matter of deciding what punishment fits what crime. If we let every victim decide the fate of every defendant, we'd probably have a lot of dead bodies for crimes that may not deserve death.

Once you report a crime, it shouldn't be up to you whether or not to judge "hmm is this ok ?, should this guy get off scotfree for this ?"

Like you said, most crimes like murder, the state will take up the issue and prosecute regardless if the victim or their family come forward--but in other crimes, i think it's rightfully up to the individual to protect themselves and make others accountable for their actions. If we left it up to the state(police or govt), without a system of checks and balances, they would likely legislate their own opinions over the rest of us(which is, in essence, fascism).

Because we live in a civilized society that says the victim is free to press charges

Everything you said , is based on the fact that it went to court, indicating someone DID in fact press charges.

I am just saying that is too much power for an individual to have. To basically decide the fate of another human being.

Again, if the case goes to court, society sets the punishment for the crime, and a jury decides if the suspect is guilty. So, ultimately, the victim can only press charges, they don't decide anyone's fate.

Someone could stab you 20 times, yet miraculously you live.
That person ATTEMPTED MURDER yet can get off scotfree if you excercise your right to choose that option.
Whether there were no witnesses or 86 witnesses
it is still YOUR Choice.
Likely in every case people WILL press charges but there could be many exceptions. (Temporary insanity of a family member etc.) I think alot of people wouldn't press charges in certain circumstances.
Now sure temporary insanity is a choice for a lawyer to please, the result is not the point .
The point is that the victim has the FINAL say whether it goes ahead or not.

True, but i believe that the individual deserves the right to not press charges for the reasons i gave above. I believe we should reserve the right to protect and determine our own fates, and that means keeping others accountable for their actions too. If we left it up to the state, think how helpless we'd become. It's the discussion and struggle that make us evolve as a race.

I hope that clears it up, but i do understand your opinion.

Nobody's perfect...

But damn Prince is close!

FunkyStrange said:

It is true. Victims of alleged crimes do play a part in the legal process which potentially could result in someone facing punishment. As I understand it, you are questioning why they play a part in the process. I am trying to give examples of why the victim is allowed to play such

a part

But it is only his merry way if a crime has been committed and the person who has yet even to be charged has in fact perpetrated a criminal act. As I pointed out - this person is still innocent ... so what is wrong with letting an innocent person go their merry way?I'm only quoting you on your words because, even though there is a fine distinction between a crime and an alleged crime, that distinction highlights how the law operates. I honestly wasn't trying to be picky for its own sake.

No

To take your example:

If a person is found dead under suspicious circumstances, even the police will not announce that a crime has been committed - because at this point in time it has not. What the police will say is that they are treating the incident as a murder enquiry. They cannot establish that the crime of murder has been committed - it is the court that does when someone has been found guilty of a criminal act. I fully acknowledge that even where the court frees someone on a technicality, the police force is likely to keep the case open as an indication that an injustice has been done because they firmly believe that the person they are convinced is killer has gone free.That's just the point. You live in a world where until such point as a crime has been proven, the legal authority will only go so far as to declare that they are treating their investigation as a criminal enquiry. By using the word 'event', I was not treating the occurrence lightly or equating it to something mundane like the staging of a play, or going on a shopping trip. I was simply stripping the potentially criminal act of the criminal quality you had attached to it - because at the stage to which you referred to it, no crime had been proven. I know that considering it as an 'event' sounds 'out of this world', but the police will often use such terminology too e.g. the scene of a suspected murder is referred to as 'where the incident took place' as part of their 'criminal investigation' (short for their enquiry into what they suspect is a crime)I'd be interested to know what you find exceptional about this case. This is precisely how the law is tested, learned, written and often decided. So, it cn be useful way of examining ideas which propose changes to the law, such as the one that you have suggested.

When does this example start to become exceptional? What if it wasn't two brothers but a brother and sister? Two close friends? Friends who mistook each other for strangers in a drunken stupor or darkness? Strangers?

Or do you find the fact that they were willing to forgive each other exceptional? If so, what if only one bruised eye occurred and the victim was willing to forgive the assailant?

Take the example and change it slowly until you believe that it becomes unexceptional. What are the salient characteristics which highlght what the principles are or should be which would allow justice to be done in all cases.I'm all for you criticising the current way, and you trying to find a better solution. All power to you.

I am simply describing the way the law generally operates and some of the principles that underpin its operation. You'll also be open, I hope to having your own ideas scrutinised - I'm genuinely not criticising you FunkyStrange, just examining your proposition.
.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 13:17:06 PST 2002 by langebleu]

actually it's my understanding that the state does prosecute certain crimes regardless of whether or not the victim wishes to testify

XxAxX said:

FunkyStrange's question is more to do with whether the victim even wishes charges to be pressed by the the police. Of course the police might say that, if the victim does wish for charges to be pressed, then the case stands a much better chance if the victim is also willing to testify on some occasions.

FunkyStrange gives the example of a murder charge - where the victim is unable to press charges or testify. Meanwhile, I have been trying to think of potential offences other than murder where a victim is involved and the police press charges - in spite of the victim's unwillingness to do so. (Clearly there are crimes other than murder where there is no victim, but the police press charges e.g. drug possession.)

langebleu said:

I am too. All i could come up with were traffic violations and speeding tix; financial scandals where they may not be a plaintive, but their books have been cooked to show a profit, etc etc. Of course there are victims in this case, but many times prosecutors will press charges regardless as publicly owned companies are required to truthfully show their profits/losses to their shareholders and stock exchange.
Other than, most crimes need some kind of victim to come forward to press charges.
...Great discussion as usual on the Org!