I have been called many things in my life. Some have been flattering, some not so flattering. I have been called everything from SIR to an SOB and all points in between. But fortunately, at least up until this point, the one thing that I have not been called is defendant. Hopefully, I will be able to continue to avoid this particular descriptive. But, if I should slip up somewhere along the way, I cannot think of a better country in the world to be called such a thing than in the United States. We may not do a lot of things right, but we do guarantee certain rights to the accused that are unheard of in most other places.

I am sometimes frustrated by the voluminous number of rights and the pains that we take to be sure that we do not omit even one. But, we should all be comforted in knowing that these rights would be available to each of us as well, if we should ever find ourselves on the wrong side of the law. These rights are the foundation of our criminal justice and judicial systems. But as important as these rights are, should we also not work just as furiously to ensure that those people who are the victims of crime receive similar rights as well? Common sense would say yes, but in practical matters this is seldom the case.

Victim’s rights have made much progress over the past few years but are still far below the standard of guaranteed rights of the accused. One such example concerns an age old theory that addresses “one’s right to face his accuser.” In other words, the accused has the right to be present in court proceedings to see and hear everything that is said about them. And more importantly, to hear and see who is making the accusations. Even though some feel that this is an unfair advantage based on factors such as intimidation, and the ability to change defenses based on what is being said, most will vehemently argue that the right is non-negotiable.

But, this “right” is not always available to the victim. This is based on a courtroom procedure known as the rule of sequestration, whereby witnesses can not be in the courtroom during certain portions of the trial. And this is sometimes being used to keep crime victims out of the court proceeding in which they are the actual victim. The ruling attempts to keep people from changing testimony based on what they have heard another witness testify about. This is a rule based on good intention and one that seeks to ensure that the truth is heard by the judge and jury. But, if the rule should apply to the victim, the same rule should apply to the defendant. Currently, the defendant is exempt from any such rule. Finally, legislation is being attempted that would allow the same exemption for the victim.

Senate Bill 119 gives victims and families of victims the right to attend and be present in any court process unless the Judge determines that their presence would impair a fair trial. Of course, we all know that a defendant could never impair the conduct of a fair trial. Most sexual abuse victims and every child victim that I have known are petrified to have to testify in court, knowing that the person who committed the crime against them will be there glaring at them during the entire procedure. That is all fine and good, but let us not forget the whole “defendant’s rights” thing. Give me a break!

I am all for every defendant receiving a fair trail, especially if that defendant’s name should be the same as mine. But, in keeping with rules and procedures that the courts are so famous for, I would submit that it might be time to add one more. It is known as an equal playing field rule. It is the “what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander” concept of law. It is the belief that “no one rule of law is more important than the truth.” The “what is right is right” theory of law. And it is, Heaven forbid, the common sense approach that the rights of the accused should never exclude the rights of the victim and that the rights of the victim should never exclude the rights of the accused.

Unfortunately, common sense and laws have never mixed very well. It is not that the ingredients do not mix, it is more so who is doing the mixing and the environment in which they are mixed.