it's the accused that has the rights people...

the supreme court just heard arguments on a case examining the use of prior statements to law enforcement and 911 operators made by an alleged victim of domestic abuse during trial of the accused when the victim is not available to testify. reading reports of the questions asked by the justices it seems as though crawford will reign and the right to confrontation will continue to have teeth. this will inevitably lead to an outcry from victim's rights groups and domestic abuse survivor's groups about how the system is slanted against them and too many abusers get off without even a slap on the wrist. they will go on and on about "victim's rights" and they will have an emotionally compelling argument. but they will be wrong.

our constitution guarantees rights to a person facing criminal charges...important rights that form the foundation of our system and are vital to a fair trial process...rights like those we all know embodied in Miranda, juries, confrontation, notice of charges...things we all take for granted and never want to actually give to a criminal defendant...until it is a family member, or even us. the right to confrontation is one of the most sacred...for too long accused persons had to put up with vague charges brought by persons who never had to make an appearance at trial. the framers of the constitution set out to end these abuses.

because of the historical problems you will notice one thing when you read the constitution...victims of crime do not have "rights" in the process. every constitutional right at issue in a criminal trial belongs to the defendant...nowhere in the constitution does it say "the victim of alleged abuse has the right not to show up in court but still have their testimony heard." after the right to confrontation is expressed, it does not say "unless..." victim's rights are trendy now, and while victims of crime should have a support system in place...until our system gets a major overhaul, being put through the ringer is one of those things that happens when you accuse another of criminal behavior. and for good reason...unless we don't mean it when we claim it is better to let 10 guilty go free than condemn one innocent. of course, deep down it seems not very many people are willing to stick to that belief when push comes to shove (especially when evil-doers are involved).

if we aren't fanatical about the rights guaranteed criminal defendants horrible things happen to completely innocent people. a texas man was recently exonerated of rape for which he spent almost 20 years in prison when new dna tests excluded him as a suspect. we took almost half of this man's life from him and forced him to live in the horror of prison even after upholding his rights. there are already too many innocent in prison...and if we start abandoning constitutional protections in favor of victim's "rights" those numbers will only increase.

by hiding you're not worth a thing...