A sexual assault survivor reports to police and becomes a witness in a criminal prosecution where the Crown represents the state, not them. They have no control over whether charges are laid, what plea deals are accepted, or what sentence is imposed. Another crime victim receives regular updates, participates in sentencing through an impact statement, and accesses counseling through victim services. A third person sees their case dropped because prosecutors prioritize other matters, leaving them without acknowledgment or resolution. The criminal justice system prosecutes crimes as offenses against the state and public order, not primarily as harms against individuals. Where victims fit within this framework remains contested. Whether they are merely witnesses whose trauma is incidental to state prosecution, or whether their needs and voices should fundamentally shape how criminal cases proceed, determines how the system treats those most directly harmed by crime.
The Case for Centering Victim Experience in Criminal Process
Advocates argue that criminal justice exists because people are harmed, yet systems treat victims as afterthoughts. They report crimes, relive trauma through multiple interviews and court testimony, face cross-examination designed to discredit them, and watch outcomes determined entirely by others. From this view, victims deserve meaningful participation throughout the criminal process. They should be consulted about charging decisions and plea agreements, not simply informed after prosecutors decide. Their impact statements should carry weight in sentencing, not be perfunctory exercises. They need information about case progress, protection from intimidation, and support services throughout proceedings. Victim services should include crisis counseling, legal advocacy, financial compensation for losses, and trauma-informed practices that recognize testifying itself can be retraumatizing. Countries and jurisdictions with robust victim rights legislation demonstrate that centering victim experience does not compromise fair trials for accused persons. It simply acknowledges that those harmed by crime deserve recognition, voice, and support as the system processes offenses committed against them.
The Case for Prosecutorial Independence and Fair Process
Others worry that expanding victim involvement risks transforming criminal prosecution into private vengeance. The Crown prosecutes crimes because they violate public order and shared norms, not primarily because individuals were harmed. This distinction is crucial. If victims controlled prosecution decisions, similar offenses would be treated differently based on individual victim preferences, forgiveness, or desire for harsh punishment. Some victims want maximum sentences while offenses merit lenient treatment. Others want no prosecution while public safety requires it. From this perspective, victims deserve compassion, information, and support services, but should not control decisions about charges, plea agreements, or sentencing. Moreover, defendant rights exist to check state power. Balancing those rights against victim preferences creates impossible tensions. The accused's right to confront accusers may conflict with victim desires to avoid testimony. The presumption of innocence may feel like presuming victims lie. Proper criminal process sometimes produces outcomes victims find inadequate, but protecting everyone's rights, including those accused of crimes, must take precedence over individual victim satisfaction.
The Secondary Trauma of Criminal Process
Reporting crime to police initiates processes that can compound original harm. Victims describe their trauma to officers, then again to prosecutors, then to defense lawyers during disclosure, then publicly during testimony. Cross-examination questions their credibility, memory, and choices. Delays mean living in uncertainty for years. Cases that collapse or result in acquittals can feel like the system declaring their suffering did not matter. Meanwhile, most criminal cases never reach trial. Plea agreements resolve them with minimal victim input. Whether this process is unavoidable given how criminal justice functions, or represents fixable failures in how systems treat those they purport to serve, shapes debates about reform. Some argue that adversarial process inherently traumatizes victim-witnesses and alternatives like restorative justice better serve both accountability and healing. Others maintain that protecting accused persons' rights necessarily creates difficulties for victims that cannot be eliminated without compromising fair process.
The Question
If criminal prosecution exists because people are harmed yet treats victims primarily as witnesses in cases belonging to the state, does that represent appropriate separation of public justice from private vengeance, or systemic failure to serve those most affected by crime? Can victims have meaningful voice in criminal proceedings without compromising the accused's right to fair trial and the Crown's independent prosecutorial discretion? And when supporting victims requires resources while prosecuting accused and providing adequate defense also require funding, how should limited criminal justice budgets prioritize between competing needs?