Offender Rights vs. Victims Rights

 

Anyone who has had contact with the criminal justice system knows that offenders have many rights during the process.  They can determine the direction, speed and duration of interaction with the system more than the victim who suffered through the crime.  This, of course, was intended to protect wrongly accused people and to ensure that each person accused of a crime receives fair treatment.  However, this often contributes to victims feeling silenced or censored during the process.  Victims' rights groups have advocated for victims and their families to be able to participate in the justice system, and we have certainly come a long way.  However, as more decisions are being challenged, we have to ask--when is an offender's right to presumption of innocence more important than a victim and community's right to justice?

 

A case is currently in front of the Supreme Court to determine whether it is constitutional to use an offender's DNA collected due to one crime to prosecute for another crime.  The case that is before the Supreme Court centers around a Maryland law that allows law enforcement to collect a DNA sample from people who are arrested.  Once the DNA is collected, it may be sent (as happened in this case) to the federal DNA Database to be compared to DNA evidence from crime scenes.  I understand the concern for a citizen's right to privacy and protection from unlawful searches.  However, once there is enough evidence to at least arrest someone for a crime, aren't some of those rights gone?  Once a person has violated another person's right to safety and security, why are they still protected?  I am not advocating for an eye or an eye, but common sense that not everyone is entitled to the same rights, once you have acted outside of the laws of civil society, as defined by the laws of this country.  If the offender committed no other crime, or at least left no other evidence, why not use DNA to identify offenders and keep better records, as the state of Maryland is suggesting? 

 

In another case, a University of North Carolina student faces expulsion for speaking out against her rapist. Her school states that she violated the honor code by intimidating her attacker and adversely affected his life.  She has still not identified her rapist in any public forum, which honestly, is commendable.   A similar case occurred last year, when a victim took to Twitter to name her rapists when a plea deal was reached that she did not feel was fair.  In the Kentucky case, a gag issue was ordered, and the offenders were minors.  Offenders who are minors have more rights than adult offenders.  Gag orders are issued for the protection of many parties and are even issued for the protection of evidence and testimony.  However, when does being a victim of a crime nullify a person's right to free speech?  How far is the law allowed to go to limit communication about a court case, even when it is over?  These are questions that we all are continuing to answer, but we must keep challenging the law.  We must keep fighting for victims and for justice.