Ken WhiteRather appalled by this positive treatment of this decision, which illustrates why creating “victim rights” in the context of prosecutions creates irreconcilable conflicts. Note that this involved the GOVERNMENT screwing up by not giving adequate notice, which winds up prejudicing the DEFENDANT in connection with the GOVERNMENT’S confession of wrongdoing and unsustainability of the conviction.
Noah Cook@Popehat So the new 5th amendment interpretation is that persons can be deprived of life, liberty, and property if the victim fails to receive due process of law?
Spanky Quigman@UncivilServant @Popehat Alleged victim. I mean, they’re certainly victims, but they’re not necessarily victims of the people over whom they are given power. That “not necessarily” qualifier being the crux.
@SpankyQ @Popehat Not at all. In this context it's entirely irrelevant. The issue isn't actual guilt or innocence, I haven't gone through all the twists of the case.
It's a much more simple due process issue. There was a process, they went through the process, which resulted in the conviction being vacated.
Regardless of whether this is the correct outcome, you do not want the state to assert that the victim's rights allow it to call "backsies" on due process.
@UncivilServant @Popehat Oh, I totally agree. That’s what I meant by “not necessarily” being the crux: we don’t know–in a legal sense–that the defendant is the perpetrator. Any rights victims have are only applicable to the treatment of the convicted perpetrator of the crime and are (or should be) irrelevant during any proceedings related to determining guilt. Otherwise, victims have arbitrary power over others on the basis of an accusation.
Hope that’s clearer.