The role of the victim
There was a recent trial in McLennan County involving the tragic death of a young girl in a car accident. The defendant was her cousin, who was driving, and lost control of the car. They were both extremely intoxicated, and were coming back from a party.
The case generated a lot of publicity, and a lot of discussion. There were numerous comments posted to the newspaper and TV websites. The case was somewhat unique because the victim's family did not want their niece prosecuted. They testified for her at trial, and told the jury they did not want her to go to jail, and that if she did, it would be like losing another daughter. The jury didn't agree, and ended up sentencing her to two years in the prison.
The case is also unique because it raises the question of what role the victim plays in the prosecution of a criminal case. Of course, this isn't a factor in many cases, since they are essentially victimless crimes (e.g. drugs, DWI) However, for those cases involving victims, the case is centered on them.
After 26+ years of practicing criminal law, I've observed that the role a victim has depends on whose side they are on. If they side with the defendant, they are ignored. This regularly comes up in assault cases involving spouses or family members - they are often dragged into court, even if they want the charges dropped.
On the other hand, if the victims want the defendant prosecuted, they are often allowed to control the prosecution. Another case is being tried because a plea agreement could not be reached because the victim's family would not approve it. Basically, the decision on what was a reasonable offer was left to the victim's family.
There are certainly pros and cons to allowing victims to control a criminal prosecution. Many times, it may not be in the best interests of society as a whole to dismiss a case (think of a wealthy defendant who is able to buy his way out of case by paying off the victim) On the other hand, the victim is not the best person to decide how a case should be handled. Obviously they have a personal interest, and many times may not even care about other considerations.
Unfortunately, we have not reached a happy balance. Victims are allowed to control the case when the prosecutor agrees with them. If they don't, they are ignored or dismissed.
The ultimate question is what is the best solution in a particular case. The feelings of the victim and their family is a valid consideration. It is not the only one, though. The defendant and their circumstances must also be considered, as well as the facts of the offense. Unless all those factors are fairly weighed and considered, you cannot reach a "fair" resolution.
The case generated a lot of publicity, and a lot of discussion. There were numerous comments posted to the newspaper and TV websites. The case was somewhat unique because the victim's family did not want their niece prosecuted. They testified for her at trial, and told the jury they did not want her to go to jail, and that if she did, it would be like losing another daughter. The jury didn't agree, and ended up sentencing her to two years in the prison.
The case is also unique because it raises the question of what role the victim plays in the prosecution of a criminal case. Of course, this isn't a factor in many cases, since they are essentially victimless crimes (e.g. drugs, DWI) However, for those cases involving victims, the case is centered on them.
After 26+ years of practicing criminal law, I've observed that the role a victim has depends on whose side they are on. If they side with the defendant, they are ignored. This regularly comes up in assault cases involving spouses or family members - they are often dragged into court, even if they want the charges dropped.
On the other hand, if the victims want the defendant prosecuted, they are often allowed to control the prosecution. Another case is being tried because a plea agreement could not be reached because the victim's family would not approve it. Basically, the decision on what was a reasonable offer was left to the victim's family.
There are certainly pros and cons to allowing victims to control a criminal prosecution. Many times, it may not be in the best interests of society as a whole to dismiss a case (think of a wealthy defendant who is able to buy his way out of case by paying off the victim) On the other hand, the victim is not the best person to decide how a case should be handled. Obviously they have a personal interest, and many times may not even care about other considerations.
Unfortunately, we have not reached a happy balance. Victims are allowed to control the case when the prosecutor agrees with them. If they don't, they are ignored or dismissed.
The ultimate question is what is the best solution in a particular case. The feelings of the victim and their family is a valid consideration. It is not the only one, though. The defendant and their circumstances must also be considered, as well as the facts of the offense. Unless all those factors are fairly weighed and considered, you cannot reach a "fair" resolution.
