Victims, Accusers and the Presumption of Innocence


Call someone a victim, and they are at once framed in a sympathetic light. Bad things happen to victims, we are drawn to them, wanting to help them in any way we can. It is horrible to be a victim.

We don’t feel the same way about accusers. These folks are suspect. They point a finger, whether with justification or not lies in the proof. An accuser might be entitled to our sympathy, but they might just as easily merit our scorn if it turns out that their accusations are false.

To a victim goes immediate sympathy and support; to the accuser, a cautious ear. A victim has suffered gratuitously, an accuser may have so suffered, but, without proof, there is no way of saying whether the accuser is the cause of gratuitous harm to another.

There should therefore be no victims in the criminal justice system until after a verdict or plea of guilty. At least there would not be if we were truly serious about the presumption of innocence. Instead, our courts are awash in a cult of victimhood. I say banish the term victim from our lexicon. Substitute it with accuser, a term that is as existentially suspect as the term defendant, the person who is, after all, merely accused: put the accused and the accuser on a level playing field.

Juries are charged daily in this country that an accused person is presumed innocent: unless and until the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the law requires jurors to regard a person as not guilty. Yet our language gives this presumption away every time we refer to the accuser as a victim: the victim has suffered gratuitous harm, after all. Who other than the defendant could have caused it?

We throw the presumption of innocence to the wolves when it comes to our treatment of accusers. We have laws giving rights to "victims" at all stages of the criminal proceeding. A person raising an accusation gets input into all phases of a prosecution before there is even a finding of guilt, yet they are not even a party to the litigation. We treat their accusations as truth long before a fact finder tells us the accuser is not really a victimizer.

We have victim’s advocates attending pre-trials. Indeed, we use the term victim to describe accusers, doing so without even stopping to consider that calling someone a victim before there is a finding of guilt makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. Calling an accuser a victim before the consummation of a prosecution is much like calling a man with mere lust in his heart a father.

If we were serious about the presumption of innocence we would banish the word victim from our vocabulary until such time as a jury returns a guilty verdict or a defendant enters a plea. Let the complaining witness, or, more aptly put, the accuser, stand in the same suspect netherworld defendants inhabit. Why give a privileged position to the accuser by calling them a victim? This simple act of framing the complaining witness as a victim carries enormous rhetorical and emotional consequences, consequences that rebound to the detriment of the accused.

There are cases in which defendants are wrongfully accused, in which they are themselves the victim. Sometimes defendants are the victims of simple mistake; sometimes defendants are the victims of malicious accusers. Let’s dispense with the false sanctimony attending anyone the state seeks to represent as a victim.

A simple start: Let’s change the title of those representing complaining witnesses from Victim’s Advocates to Accuser’s Advocates. Sure, they will object and feel indignant. But feelings are indignation are the lot of the accused, the man or woman cloaked, we say, in the presumption of innocence. Or don’t we really care about the presumption of innocence?

Comments: (5)

  • put the accused and the accuser on a level playing field.
    If you truly cared about the "presumption of innocence," and wanted the accuser and accused on a level playing field, then there would be "presumption of innocence" for the accuser also. Instead, you assume they are lying or mistaken and go about trying to prove it to be true. I don't think you really want the accuser and the accused on a level playing field. That thought doesn't seem to fit your framework.
    Posted on September 27, 2019 at 8:39 pm by Carolyn C. Martin
  • Victims, Accusers and the Presumption of Innocence
    I felt as though I've been pierced in the heart, yet again. This is something you can never "get over" when personally involved. Can't help feel true justice just doesn't exist. It's all theatrics, (some pre-scripted) nothing more. What a shameful business. How sad for us all.
    Posted on March 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm by will talk for money
  • Victim's Advocate to Defendant\\\'s Advocates
    Until there is some way or will to test the veracity of victim/accusers and their attendant witnesses (occasionally suborned by the State itselt to give perjured and false testimony under oath), we are hopelessly lost.
    Posted on March 12, 2011 at 5:43 pm by william doriss
  • Victim's Advocate to Defendant's Advocates
    But, as a matter a fact, it's a monumental hypocrisy for almost all parties involved, except the defendant. A nicely done essay.
    Posted on March 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm by william doriss
  • Accuser's Advocates or Victim\\\'s Advocates?
    We give lip-service to the "presumption of innocence" each and every time we enter the courtroom.
    Posted on March 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm by william doriss

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
Captcha:
What is the day of the week?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]