When the Victim’s Wishes Don’t Matter
Last week we wrote a piece about what victims actually think of the registry. This week, a story in The Palm Beach Post raises another point related to Florida’s Marsy’s Law: What happens when the victim doesn’t want the outcome the State wants?
According to the reporting, a coach pleaded guilty to offenses involving a 14-year-old student and was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by four years of probation. The victim and her family did not want him prosecuted. That fact was reported publicly by The Palm Beach Post itself. That is significant because Florida’s Constitution — in what is known as Marsy’s Law — gives crime victims a meaningful role in the criminal justice process. Among other things, victims have the right to be heard at plea and sentencing proceedings and the right to confer with the prosecuting attorney concerning plea agreements, sentencing and the disposition of the case. Florida Statutes goes even further. Section 960.001 specifically provides that, in qualifying cases, the State Attorney shall consult with the victim to obtain the victim’s views concerning the disposition of the case, including plea agreements and sentencing.
If the victim’s wishes are supposed to be part of the criminal justice process, what does it mean when those wishes are simply disregarded? FAC is not suggesting that a victim gets to dictate whether someone is prosecuted or what sentence a judge imposes. That’s not what Marsy’s Law says. But there is a profound difference between giving victims a meaningful voice and giving them a voice that the system simply ignores when it doesn’t like what they have to say.
Superficially, the headlines were ugly. An assistant football coach and a student. But below the surface, the guy was 20 years old. He was sentenced as a youthful offender. The relationship was consensual (yes, we get that a minor can’t consent). And most importantly neither the girl nor her parents wanted the guy prosecuted. The two years in prison are not the worst part. The worst is that after he completes his sentence, the consequences continue. He will be placed on Florida’s sex-offender registry for life, with restrictions and collateral consequences that affect where he lives, works, when he can travel and how he participates in society.
The victim didn’t want that and that should matter. Florida has spent years telling the public that its sex-offender laws are about protecting victims. Marsy’s Law was sold to voters as a way to ensure that victims have a meaningful voice in the justice system. But if the victim says, “This isn’t what I want,” who exactly is being protected here, and whose wishes are actually being heard?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If it saves just one child”
/S (this means the above comment was said in sarcasm btw)
First and foremost, I have never seen a conviction for a teacher/minor student sex crime for less than 20 years. That the DA here only wanted 13 tells me the circumstances of this particular case (authority figure argument aside) were probably not all that alarming or egregious.
Second, I have a very hard time believing the judge was “moved by the defendant’s youth” and opinions of the victim.
Third and most significant, the simple fact is that prosecutors and courts couldn’t care less about victims if they tried. DAs always want maximum sentences, and I’ve heard way too many judges proudly proclaiming to sentence another million years before they retire.
They don’t mind propping up victims that call for the defendant’s head in the least. Then, what they want is all that matters. But in cases like this, where the purported victim doesn’t want any action at all, they revert to the statutory age of “too stupid to think for themselves” and want the maximum anyway.
And it bears repeating that DAs absolutely adore sex crimes. Burden of proof eliminated in practice if not law, decades-long sentences, pure fluff for their resumes. I’m not certain if judges are the same way, considering 99% of the administration that bears a judge’s signature in the criminal court system was written by the prosecutors of those cases and most judges don’t read anything beyond their signature block.
And I would imagine the DA in this case is being ridiculed by her peers for only getting 2 years on a authority figure/minor sex charge. And her boss is likely re-evaluating her position.
That goes for the adults too. My prosecutor basically said my ex was out of touch with reality when she asked the court not to send me to prison so I could continue to support them, saying she didn’t think I would ever offend again. (20 years later offense free, guess who was right?)
Well, I was remanded to prison and the registry anyway, and my loved ones became destitute as a result, almost becoming homeless as a result of my imprisonment. The government could care less. They don’t think about their actions enough to care if, in helping the victim get ‘justice’ they also severely negatively affect them, their daily life, and future prospects.
I repeat – DAs (and most judges, unfortunately) only care about their precious 100% conviction rates and securing as many felony convictions with the longest sentences possible. Truth, victims, fairness, and justice be damned. They want their resumes to read along the lines of “Earned 10,000 felony convictions, sentenced to 1 million years imprisonment” despite only being 50 actual crimes and 995,000 of those years are concurrent with the rest.
When victims say “He ruined my life. I want him hung in front of a firing squad and set on fire”, they’re not pursuing “justice” for that victim. They’re just using that victim as a prop to support the sentence they want anyway for resume enhancement. As shown in this case, a victim that says “Leave him alone” is thought too stupid to think for themselves and have no clue what their best interests are (which, for some reason I can’t figure out, appear to be fluffing a DA’s resume).
This is a bad example for this argument.
The fact they were on school grounds or anywhere in public gives credence to the sentence.
In private the argument is ok to be made.
FAC should take down this article
So this opinion is allowed, but not mine.
😑
This is akin to elected officials voting however they want despite the wishes of the majority of people who speak on the topic being discussed and voted on. It does not matter. Once the matter becomes part of the legal system, it is no longer in the hands of the people and their considerations are usually hardly part of the final solution and conditions.
The final arbiter, the judge, has the final say over the matter and usually won’t go against what the system has done in the end to save their own legal souls for the future. This is one wrinkle in the system that needs to be ironed out but never will be because the system doesn’t want it and won’t allow it.