Now that Judge Paul G. Cassell is back to being attorney (and professor) Paul Cassell, he’s going to make sure that victims of crime are not treated like “second-class citizens.”  Cassell is the attorney for Ken and Sue Antrobus, parents of Trolly Square Shooting victim Vanessa Quinn. 

Cassell argued before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Quinn should be declared a “Victim” of Mackenzie Hunter, who illegally transferred a firearm to Sulejman Talovic, the Trolly Square Shooter, under federal law.

Cassell is choosing a sympathetic paid indeed; who doesn’t feel for the parents of a woman killed by a crazed man with a gun?  And who doesn’t want to see the provider of weapons to the killer punished?  No one of character. 

But Cassell’s advocacy for victims is really a ploy to allow victims (or parties once, twice, or three times removed) retribution.  This is evidenced by Cassell’s advocating a change (now made) in Fed. R. Crim. P.  60.

This change allows anyone declared a victim (as Cassell was propsing for the Antrobuses) under federal law to be present during the trial.  Rule 60 states:

(2) Attending the Proceeding. 

The court must not exclude a victim from a public court proceeding involving the crime, unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the victim’s testimony would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. In determining whether to exclude a victim, the court must make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and must consider reasonable alternatives to exclusion. The reasons for any exclusion must be clearly stated on the record.

Sounds reasonable?  Not quite.  Victims usually have the largest retributive motives.  Is it conceivable that victims will change or “remember” testimony to ensure a defendant’s conviction when the defendant may face the possibility of acquittal? Absolutely.

Defining victims in contrast to Cassell’s misguided attempts at providing retribution, Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice states the situation perfectly:

[Victims] are the central focus of the trial.  They are at the epicenter of the system.  The problem is, to victims rights advocates, that they aren’t there on equal footing as the other two players in the adversary system.

They shouldn’t be.  The prosecution does not represent victims, and it shouldn’t.  The defendant should not have two independent adversaries, and he shouldn’t.  The existence and deployment of criminal laws is not to vindicate personal rights of any individual victim, but to reflect society’s hedge against criminal conduct.

Greenfield is spot on; the criminal law exists for society’s sake, not revenge.  If you want revenge, you have to find it on your own—not on the government’s dime.