Dear Editor,
The rights of victims have been among the postures embraced following the disclosures from Leonora. I think that a closer look is now appropriate.
Law-abiding neighbours and citizens can only agree that victims too have rights; that there is an obligation first to advocate those rights, and then to secure them. No one disagrees on the ‘what’ of these rights; only on the ‘how,’ or the means used to obtain the same.
False testimony, manufactured evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct, wherever they occur, all inflict abhorrent rents in the tapestry of the law. For the most part – and other than in high profile matters – these occur out of sight. Nonetheless, they are no less devastating in impact to seekers of justice, about to be doubly victimized. Further, fact-finders who employ or condone such behaviour and approaches have heaped injustice (the technique) upon injustice (the illegal act). Everyone suffers: the victim, the state, and the trusted remedial apparatus. Worse, the innocent could be condemned illegally to legal purgatory. Equally disturbing, would be the fact that the real violator eluded the reach of the law, and the prescriptions of justice. In effect, the violator is free to serialize felonious conduct at will, and extend the list of victims whose rights will be perforated. I digress for a moment to mention also official serialization in the form of questionable allocations (more misconduct) of multiple felonies to the departed.
Stated differently, misconduct – whether of degree, through adversarial proceedings, or statistical creativity – by guardians of the law, perpetuates further misconduct by the real guilty party that imperils the very same rights of victims that some now rush to embrace; victims presently unidentified and in waiting. In the minds of the faithful, these wrongs balance the scales, they are of little consequence, and they offer closure under the diaphanous umbrella of the rights of victims. They could not be more wrong on each and every count.
So, amidst the outrage over Leonora, I urge those who deplore or defend to examine their conscience, and to retreat from the obviously convenient. They must recognize that the state possesses great power; they should similarly recognize that great responsibility marches in lockstep with this great power. It is best said in Berger v United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), that advocates on behalf of society should realize that they represent “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” This is a standard that applies to the fullest to all officers of the court, not just prosecutors. It should be noted by those who make laws on behalf of the people. And it should be absorbed by those who rightly speak of the rights of victims.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall