1

Court Issues & Victims Rights

Name
Professor
CJA/394
Date

Court Issues and Victims Rights

The United States Court system is flawed; however, it is far improved from where
it once was. As is written in the constitution, every American has individual rights; the courts
allow defendants to exercise his or her constitution rights, Such as to an attorney, protection
against double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Problematic issues in our current court system
would be language barriers, the length and speediness of trials, and victims rights. The criminal
justice system evolves with the citizens and the community.
Language Barriers
As the United States continues to evolve and grow so does the cultural diversity of its
citizens. The widespread diversity causes many problems for the criminal justice system, such as
different morals, ethical beliefs, and the language barrier itself. The court system plays a major
role in society by resolving criminal and civil issues that arise. As the cultural diversity expands,
so should the skills to preserve all citizens their individual rights.
Without proper translation with language barriers, many things can get misconstrued
starting at law enforcement levels. If officers cannot understand what the individuals are saying
because of a language barrier, the officer may not understand the behaviors, or what the
individual is trying to say thinking that they may be acting erratic escalating the problem.
Incorrect interpretations in the courtroom can alter an individuals original testimony. This is one
of the many reasons why professional translators are required inside the law enforcement
agencies and courtrooms.
The right to a fair trial is an umbrella term, which includes several rights intended to
prevent the use of excess authority by a state in criminal trials (Brown-Blake, 2006). The Sixth

Amendment reads, in part, In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and confronted with the witnesses against
him ("Find Law for Legal Professionals ", 2014).
The Constitution does not specify that courts must proceed in a language that the
defendant understands. However, it does specify the notion of a fair trial for all Americans,
which caused courts to determine that individuals are permitted to have interpreters. In the case
of U.S. ex rel. Negron v. New York the court found the defendant guilty after hearing the
testimonies of 14 individuals. Twelve of which were not interpreted in Spanish for the defendant,
who did not speak or understand English (Brown-Blake, 2006). The court ruled that lack of
interpretation led to the inability of the accused to respond to specific testimony, which would
inevitably hamper the capacity of his counsel to conduct effective cross0examination (BrownBlake, 2006, p. 392).
Court-interpreters
With the increase of diversity in the United States, brings languages and culture barriers.
In a courtroom setting, if the defendant cannot understand English then the court will locate an
appropriate interpreter who speaks and understands the language of the defendant. While it is
more common to have a Spanish-speaking interpreter, courts can struggle to find the more rare
cultures in America such as Swahili.
Some courts prefer to conduct proceedings over a video monitor for more convenient
purposes, rather than bringing an interpreter to appear in court. The court would call an
interpretation service via telephone and conference the interpreter into the video proceedings.

The judge will then direct the interpreter to interpret the testimony and examination for the
defendant.
In order for the defendant to have a fair trial the courts must ensure that the defendants
are aware of the charges being brought against them, so they can make informed decisions about
the case, such as legal counsel bail, and plea bargaining. In order to fully inform the defendant,
the court must take the first step in ensuring an adequate interpreter in a language they
understand.
Victim Rights
In the 1970s, courts viewed victims of crimes as regrettable casualties of growing
criminal activity, victims rights were virtually non-existent (Muraskin & Roberts, 2009). During
the 1970s, people organized support groups, and advocacy organizations to help victims of
crimes (Muraskin & Roberts, 2009). During the 1970s victims were not notified if an arrest had
been made in relation to their case or if an individual had been convicted of their crime. Many
victims had no knowledge if police recovered their stolen property, or if they would receive
compensation to testify in court because they missed work (Muraskin & Roberts, 2009).
By 2000, 49 states passed a Victims Bill of Rights and former presidents Clinton and
G.W. Bush endorsed amending the Constitution to ensure victims rights in court proceedings
involving sentencing, parole, and restitution (Muraskin & Roberts, 2009). Congress passed the
Crime Victims Rights Act in 2004, which ensures victims rights during federal court
proceedings. Currently, all 50 states, Washington D.C., and many U.S. territories have victims
rights within the statutory codes (Victim Law, 2013).

Victim of crimes rights are protected by law, The Victims Rights Law not only protects
victims of crimes, but their family, and witnesses as well. Massachusetts does not have a victims'
rights amendment to its constitution. Victims rights in Massachusetts include:

The right to privacy & speaking at sentencing

The right to be informed and assisted

The right to a speedy fair trial

The right to be free from threats and intimidation

The right to restitution and reparations for their losses

The right to be present in the courtroom for all important hearings

The right to be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity

("Mass.gov", 2014).

Victim Bill of rights

To preserve and protect victims rights, Massachusetts created the Victim Bill of Rights in
1983, which ensures that:
The right to an explanation of the court system and notice of significant case

developments
The right to notice of court hearings, and the right to attend those hearings
The right to information regarding witness protection
The right to information regarding financial assistance and social services
The right to a prompt disposition of the case
The right to confer with the prosecution
The right to request confidentiality
The right to a secure waiting area
The right to information regarding witness fees
The right to assistance with employers and creditors on financial matters
The right of a subpoenaed witness not to face employment repercussions
The right to agree or refuse to be interviewed
The right to confer with probation prior to filing of the presentence report with the
judge

The right to request restitution

The right to speak directly to the judge about sentencing
The right to be informed of the final outcome of the case
The right to the return of personal property
The right to the return of personal property
The right to information about the defendants parole status and release
The right to be informed about possible civil lawsuits
The right to display a photo of a homicide victim

Victims are allotted certain rights, such as to be present at the court process, to decline to
speak with defense counsel or a defense investigator, and to pursue civil actions for damages. If
victim rights were not created then victims would not be able to stand up to their attacker and get
the closure, they need in fear of their safety. All of these rights are created to protect and secure
the future of victims of crime, if I were to change anything in the criminal court system it would
be to continue to evolve with new crimes come new laws and regulations.

References
Brown-Blake, C. (2006). Fair Trial, Language and the Right to Interpretation. International
Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 13(4), 391-412.
Retrieved from http://av4kc7fg4g.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/
?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journ
al&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fair+Trial
%2C+Language+and+the+Right+to+Interpretation&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+on+
Minority+and+Group+Rights&rft.au=Brown-Blake
%2C+Celia&rft.date=2006&rft.pub=Martinus+Nijhoff+Publishers
%2C+an+imprint+of+Brill&rft.issn=1385-4879&rft.eissn=15718115&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=391&rft.epage=391&rft.externalDBID=n
%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=n%2Fa&paramdict=en-US

Muraskin, R., & Roberts, A. R. (2009). Visions for Change. Crime and Justice in the TwentyFirst Century, Fifth Edition. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection
database
Find Law for Legal Professionals . (2014). Retrieved from
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6.html
Mass.gov. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eopss/law-enforce-and-cj/prisons/domviolence/massachusetts-victim-bill-of-rights.html