Question 1
The conflict between the rights of the victim and that of the defendant has elicited a lot of problems in the course of administering justice. The law covers both the defendant and the victim’s rights, but if the rights of the victim and defendant result in a conflict, the case judge often has difficult decision to make -after hearing the opinions of each party. According to the law, the judge should apply the principle of ‘presumptio innocentiae’, whereby the victim is always treated as innocent until proven guilty by the rule of law (Groenhuijsen 167). However, according to the nature of the case, the rights of the victim will prevail if the rights of the defendant are likely to cause interference with the case. Moreover, some of the unwritten general principles of law such as the principles of proportionality and subsidiary could be applied to determine whether the victim’s or the defendant rights should be considered (Groenhuijsen 173). However, in order to find the appropriate solution to the conflict between the rights of the victim and the rights of the suspect, the prosecutor should follow and apply the conceptual notion that states that, “the victims and the offender’s common interest should not be equated with an identical interest”. Likewise, shared interest does not mean same interest (Groenhuijsen 174).
In the case where the rights of the victim and the rights of a convicted offender cause a conflict, the rights of the convicted offender will prevail because after completing the court sentence, the case will be closed. If the ex-convict poses a threat to the victim; the victim should seek a court redress which could entail a court order that prevents the ex-convict from having personal contact with the victim (Groenhuijsen 169).
Question 2
Memorial videos have traditionally played a controversial role in determining the penalty for murder trials. Victim impact videos were initially allowed in court in order to augment testimonies by providing quick reviews of the victim’s life as well as the impact caused by the murder. However, these victim impact videos have had some setbacks in recent times as they have been accused of causing or leading to verdicts that are based on sentimental feelings from either the jury or even the case judge.
In my opinion, victim impact videos and other multimedia presentations should be allowed in court. However, strict guidelines for presentation should be put in place in order to prevent sentimental verdicts from the jury. The content of the multimedia presentation should be relevant with the case and should show the victims unique qualities that demonstrate his or her behavior and activities. Chronological videos beginning from birth should be considered only for young victims but not for adults. Moreover, the defense counsel should be given an advance notice about the impending multimedia presentation and should also be granted access to these presentations. In addition, the defense counsel should be informed about the compilers of the latter. The defense counsel should also be allowed to access the unedited footage -if there is a suspicion that the editor fabricated it with the intention of manipulating the facts. The defense counsel should be given the right to cross-examine the video maker, and challenge the proponent of the video if they suspect that a manipulation has occurred. Finally, the length of the video should be reduced to a short time of less than 10 minutes to conserve time.
Work Cited
Groenhuijsen, M. S. "Conflicts of victims interests and offenders rights in the criminal justice system: A European perspective." International victim ology: Selected papers from the 8th International Symposium. Australian Institute of Criminology, 1996: 163-176
