I read this, and honestly, it’s kind of nebulous and vague in the exact description and redress afforded a ‘victim’ with respect to courtroom procedure.
The article’s on specificity is the desire to let ‘victims’ be present throughout the entirety of a courtroom proceeding.
I have mixed feelings on this. Traditional witness procedure requires that witnesses only be present for their testimony so as not to be afforded the opportunity to bias their testimony based on testimony of other witnesses. The article supports a review/process/hearing venue to determine the efficacy of a possible Constitutional Amendment that overrides this.
Frankly, without clear stipulation about VICTIM - who they are (e.g., a co-aggrieved party unconnected with the actual crime, an interested ‘party’ such as an amicus curiae input to a proceeding) and why the hell should they be heard.
Frankly, this smacks to me of another liberal intervention into the law process and a subversion of the real intent of crime prosecution. While the acts were perpetrated on a victim, they were also perpetrated on society as a whole, and it is that society, through its laws that redresses the act. Compensation, etc. are actually a matter of civil damage in my opinion that is supplementary to a moral and just nation that enforces its laws.
IOW, through all this, I’m inclined to say NO to this proposal. I just don’t trust anyone’s motives anymore, especially when it comes to a drive to amend the constitution. Flame away
I agree with you.