Corrections and Victims Rights - Assignment Example

Corrections and Victims Rights Question 1 The United States Code § 3771-Crime victims’ Rights Act is an imperative bill of rights that safeguards the rights of crime victims who have violated the Federal law or the laws of the Columbia District. The act defines a crime a crime victim as anyone proximately or directly (either financially, emotionally or physically) is affected by such violations or offenses; either incorporated entities or individuals (“Resources for Victims” n.d.). The act stipulates various provisions that significantly provides, articulates and advocates for the various rights of crime victims. The act, for instance, provides in paragraph a(1) that a crime victim should be reasonably be protected from an accused person. This is significant in that the right requires protection that is reasonable implying that, the crime victim should be protected to his/her satisfaction or to the extent that can be assumed to be beyond reasonable doubt by a conscious person (“Resources for Victims” n.d.). The act also provides in a(2) that a crime victim has “The right to be reasonable, accurately, and in a timely manner to be notified of any public legal proceedings, or any parole proceedings, concerning the crime or release or an escape of the accused person.” Paragraph a(4) also provides that a crime victim has “The right to a reasonable hearing at any public proceedings in the district courts concerning the release, sentencing, plea, or any parole proceedings.” a(7 and 8) also demands that a crime victim has “The right to a proceeding that is free of unreasonable delays, and the right to fair treatment and respect for the victim's privacy and dignity reasons” (“Resources for Victims” n.d.). From the selected provisions of the legislation, it is evident that the act demands the rights of a crime victim should be safeguarded reasonably. Thus, if the meaning of the word reasonable is anything to consider in the context of various provisions of the law, the legislation requires crime victims’ rights to be protected beyond reasonable doubt or be at par with the expectations of the crime victim. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act part b(1) provides that court proceedings involving the offenses against crime victims, the courts should ensure the crime victims are first accorded the rights of part (a) that protects crime victims before making any determination provided in a(3) to ensure the crime victims are excluded from any criminal proceedings that may arise (“Resources for Victims” n.d.). Conversely, the U.S. Fourth Amendment provides that an individual should have a right to privacy free from unlawful seizures and restrained freedom. Further through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment provides individuals including crime victims the right to protection and due process that is directly concurs with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, a(4, 7 and 8). Thus, it is evident that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act is in tandem with the U.S. Constitution in ensuring the rights of individuals are safeguarded. Question 2 The victim impact statements (VIS) attempt to meet the concerns, interests and needs of crime victims by providing a detailed account of the impact the crime has had on them. However, there is much controversy surrounding the appropriateness of victim impact statements in the U.S. criminal justice. Nevertheless, research has demonstrated that the victim impact statements add value during the determination of case and sentencing of the accused. For instance, Ashworth (1993) through his research on a survey carried out American judges argues states that, “some four-fifths stated that a VIS had some effect on the sentence and that what they found most useful was objective information on financial loss, physical harm and psychological effects” (p. 502). Conversely, proponents of the VIS argue that, VIS enable judges and prosecutors experience the actual effect of a crime and thus help them make better rulings that reflect the damage suffered by the victims (“Victim Impact Statements”, 1997). However, opponents of VIS argue that the use of VIS does little to extend the traditional goals and objectives of sentencing such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and retribution and thus makes sentencing more of an arbitrary process, which shifts the focus of a case from the accused to the victim. Conversely, they go ahead to argue that VIS creates a class of victims, thus resulting in stiffer penalties for defendants who commit crimes against the upper class, eloquent or loved victims (“Victim Impact Statements”, 1997). However, because these arguments by the opponents of VIS such as the Hinton (1995) study in South Australia, which found out that about 34% of victims who prepared VIS had a feeling that their VIS had no impact on the court rulings, implies that there is little evidence to discredit the fact that VIS adds value to sentencing (“Victim Impact Statements”, 1997). Moreover, from a statistical perspective, 34% is a not a substantial percentage to be relied on to support the opponents articulations. For this reason, it is justifiable to say that VIS adds value to sentencing. Question 3 In my opinion, the right to participate in a criminal case proceeding is more important to a victim that the right of notification. A victim who is alive and not incapacitated can have crucial material evidence that an investigation cannot reveal. Thus, according a crime victim the chance to participate in a criminal proceeding can enable the prosecutor to unearth material evidence from that judges can rely upon to make a sentence that reflects the impact of damage suffered by the victim (“Victim Impact Statements”, 1997). Conversely, research indicates that participation adds therapeutic value to a victim as it promotes psychological recovery and brings satisfaction to a victim as it enable him/her understand and accept a ruling for sentencing (“Victim Impact Statements”, 1997). Question 4 Our job is not to punish. The role of correctional facilities is to rehabilitate individuals sentenced in courts and not to punish or torture. The key ethical responsibility associated with this statement is that, members of correctional facilities should protect and respect the legal and civil rights of all individuals (“ACA Code of Ethics”, n.d.). Legal liability issues. Members of correctional facilities have a responsibility to adhere to the policies and code of conduct of ACA and thus should not act impartially when in the course of duty else they are held responsible. The key ethical responsibility associated with this statement is that members of correctional facilities should not enter into any informal or formal agreement that can conflict or is inconsistent with conscientious duty performance (“ACA Code of Ethics”, n.d.). The rules do not apply. Members of correctional facilities are expected not to pursue a personal interest in the course of duty. The key ethical responsibility associated with this statement is that members should report to the authorities any unethical or corrupt behaviors if there is sufficient evidence to guarantee review (“ACA Code of Ethics”, n.d.). Question 5 It’s within the code of ethics that all members of correctional facilities should uphold and subscribe to the ACA Code of Ethics. To ensure members uphold the code of conduct, (1) ACA should institute severe measures such as suspensions from duty to face legal charges or dismissal from the profession in case of gross misconduct. The fear of legal proceedings and dismissal can deter members from violating the code of ethics. (2) The ACA should organize quarterly, semi-annually or annually workshops to sensitize correctional facilities’ members on the need to uphold the code of conduct. Given the stressful conditions under which correctional facility members’ work, it is possible for them to deviate from the code of conduct in pursuit of personal interests; thus, the need for sensitization. Question 6 Rudy (n.d.) argues that victim participation in the legal process is imperative because crime victims often do not get their needs addressed appropriately by the justice system. For instance, he argues that by letting the crime victim have a voice in the legal process, the victim is able to provide personal information on the impact he/she received as a result of the offense committed by the accused and this improves the overall opinion of the entire justice system (p. 2). Conversely, Cassell (2014) argues that participation of the victim in the legal process enables him/her to seek restitution. He goes on to cite the case of Paroline v. U.S. & Amy in which the army was awarded restitution after petitioning a case in the U.S. Appeal Court. References ACA Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/About_Us/Code_of_Ethics/ACA_Member/AboutUs/Code_of_Ethics.aspx?hkey=61577ed2-c0c3-4529-bc01-36a248f79eba Ashworth, A. (1993). Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review, 498-509. Cassel, P. (2014). Why crime victims need their own voice in the criminal justice process. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/27/why-crime-victims-need-their-own-voice-in-the-criminal-justice-process/ Hinton, M. (1995). Expectations dashed: Victim impact statements and the common law approach to sentencing in South Australia. University of Tasmania Law Review, 81-99. Resources for Victims & Witnesses. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/resources/victim_resources.jsp Ruddy, R. The Victim’s Role in the Justice Process. Victim Impact Statements (n.d.). http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C53.htm Read More