Abstract
The most cynical conclusion regarding the judicial role in protecting victims' interests is that, for standing purposes, the only collective interest cognizable is the government's own definition of its own interests, which it buttresses when necessary by claiming to represent victims or society as a whole. There are less cynical conclusions as well. Federalism, separation of powers, and prosecutorial discretion all play important and legitimate roles, when properly defined and limited. We can debate what those limits ought to be. For the purposes of this conference, however, the question is not so much the judicial role, or even the prosecutorial role, but the role of the victims' rights movement. I would like to think that the movement will seek to advance important goals even when they conflict with the crime control agenda, even (especially) when they challenge comfortable assumptions and governmental arrogance, and even when the victims they protect are victims of governmental abuse or others who do not fit the traditional mold.
Recommended Citation
Bandes, Susan
(1999)
"Victim Standing,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1999:
No.
2, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1999/iss2/3