Should the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused? These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning victim rights. This is an important debate for people accused of a crime since an unbalanced justice system may lead to a false conviction. The two positions argue whether or not victim rights outweigh criminal rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that a victim's rights should have priority over the rights an accused criminal. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that such a bias would essentially break our justice system. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that victim rights should not trump criminal rights is the strongest position, the position supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that the Bill of Rights protects people accused of crimes, such a stance presumes guilt, and the accused has much more at stake than the victim. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next. The first pertinent point to make on behalf of the argument that criminal rights should be upheld is that the Bill of Rights protects people accused of crimes. For example, the Warren Court introduced the Miranda warrnings …show more content…
In support of this point, when more rights are given to the victim than to the accused person, it turns the assumption of innocent until proven guilty into guilty until proven innocent. Additionally, such a measure skips the crucial step of determining whether or not an accused person is guilty and only considers how the accused may be punished. In short, an accused person must be assumed innocent until found guilty if an fair and balanced justice system is to