Victims' Rights and Restorative Justice

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

Victimology draws together academics, activists, and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds and identifies three main victimological perspectives. Positivist victimology dates back to the emergence of victimology as a discipline in the 1940s. It looks to understand the process of victimisation and why people become victims of crime by examining the relationship between the victim and offender through an agency lens. Newburn (2013) identifies positivists such as Miers (1989) who see victimisation as being causal in nature and identify three key features:

Eyewitness misidentification can pose a serious threat in forensic evidence. Eye witness testimony can easily be tampered with due to words or phrases used. Bias is a major issue in identification especially if the police officer uses suggestive tones to portray whom they believe is the suspect. Some witnesses will change their opinion when they hear new information of the suspect. A study has shown that words can play a major impact in the witness' mind and cause them to recall false information. False information can also stem from human memory, age, distance, and how long it took before a witness could recall the information. It has been shown that due to the confidence that a witness may have, it could impact the court systems' reliability on the witness; however, there are several solutions that can be done to prevent misidentification in the court of law. Some examples that can be done are blind administration, lineup composition, instructions, confidence statements, and

Physical abuse involving contact planned to cause bodily harm, feelings of intimidation, other physical suffering or injury

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

What is restorative justice? Restorative justice is when youths that were affected by an incident choose to repair the damage that they committed, restore trust, and find a place in the community in which they can fit into society. Not only that, but one of their main focus is to build respectful relationships that can be noticed by everyone (Murthy, 2016, para. 2). The restorative justice approach shares three goals. These three goals are known as accountability, competency, and public safety. Accountability is responsible for making amends and reestablishes the losses to victims and communities. The purpose of accountability is not to obey a curfew, attending counseling, having interaction with a probation officer, or evade the usage of drugs. The full meaning of restorative justice is simply to take full responsibility for the actions that were committed (del Carmen & Trulson, 2006, p. 446). The purpose of competency is basically doing something that’s going to value another person. Not doing an illegal crime doesn’t count as a standard for competency. Getting offenders involved in different activities would value the community. Activities that value the community are work, community service, dispute resolution, and community problem solving. All of these activities help rebuild the offender, victim, and of course the community (del Carmen & Trulson. 2006, p. 446). The last one which is public safety helps offenders get more involved within the community through

This is usually because they have a form of disability or illness, making them more vulnerable to harm. Not all individuals with a disability are at risk however and all elements of the legislation descriptor must be met to be known as at risk. When assessing individuals,

The United States criminal justice is based on retributive justice. Putting offenders in prisons and jails as a source of punishment without rehabilitation has not helped them to become better citizens. " Restorative justice (RJ) is an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence. (p.20)," says Prof. Dr. Katalin Gönczöl in European Best Practices of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Procedure. Retributive justice does not allow the victim, community or the offender have a say in what happens after the offence has been made.

Restorative justice is based on the principle that criminal behavior injures not only the victim but also the community and the offender, and any effort to resolve these problems caused by criminal behavior should involve all of these parties. Common restorative justice initiatives are victim-offender mediation, circle sentencing, community holistic healing programs, and family group conferences. A key to all these responses to criminal behavior is to address not only the offender, but all parties involved including the victim and their families, offender's family, community citizens, and even the police officers themselves.

Plaintiff Jane Paul moves the Court for its order barring Defendant or his witnesses from referring to or presenting any evidence or argument regarding Ms. Paul’s past alcoholism, her DWI conviction, or the Defendant’s religious beliefs, because such evidence is irrelevant and could unduly prejudice the jury. A fair trial requires that the jury consider only the evidence relevant to the issues. Ford v. Gordon, 990 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). Evidence is relevant only if it “tends to prove or disprove a fact at issue” or bears on the witness’s credibility. Id. For example, while a witness’s reputation for being truthful is relevant, the witness’s character flaws unrelated to truthfulness are not; such evidence is usually offered only to prejudice the jury. State v. Eisele, 414 S.W.3d 507, 515 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that evidence of witness’s use of profanity was irrelevant to witness’s credibility

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. This criminal justice system that restores promotes accountability between parties involved and builds the community through the provision of assistance and respects to victims and anyone involved in the community because crime disrupts lives.

Restorative justice is a response to misconduct that gives people the opportunity to mature whether

The restorative justice movement emerged in the 1970s in Canada. However, some of its key principles were already in place. At one point in history, crimes were not seen against the state. Instead, it was up to the victim and/or their family to seek reparation from the offender. This approach was very victim-centered, but this changed as crimes began to be seen as crimes against the state as well. This made the justice system more offender-centered. People began getting together and formed a general consensus that victims deserved the same rights as the offender. This is how the restorative justice model began. The movement was based on the belief that we should not be solely focused on punishing the offender or trying to pit the defendant

This can be done by attacking the reputation of the witness or by testimony in the form of an opinion about the truthfulness of the witness’s character. Further, Rule 609 allows in some cases, evidence of a criminal conviction of the witness to be used to attack their character of truthfulness. For example, evidence that the witness was convicted of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than year, can be used to attack the witness’s creditability. Additionally, evidence of crimen falsi, or a crime that the court can readily determine that the element of that crime were proving a dishonest act or false statement by the witness can be admitted to attack he witnesses. The goal of this is to have the fairest trial by disallowing witnesses who have a propensity to lie and would therefore undermine the trial

It is not uncommon in court cases for the defendant's attorney to place the blame for harassment on the victim of the crime.