
Quoting
LexNonScripta
Sorry I need to clarify.. I'm not trying to put focus on convictions or whether a prosecutor could be prosecuted.
I'm trying to ask if what we call the Right to a fair trial (which relates to other rights and procedures) exists solely for benefit of the accused. I'm asking for personal opinions or maybe some longstanding doctrine that limits the purpose of a fair trial to the defendant and no other.
So for example I believe fair trial rights (impartial jury, proper/familiar jurisdiction, notice of the charges) are for benefit of society as a whole, because if my neighbor can be denied such, I could be denied the same. I am invested in the fair trial rights of my neighbor, even if I am the victim of his acts, because my interest in fair adjudication is inherent in my status as a member of the public. As one who desires to trust her government.
Another example, the State has a legitimate interest in the defendant's fair trial rights because A) if they didn't, they'd make costly mistakes on a regular basis,
B) it would foster distrust and impede public cooperation, and C) prosecutors MIGHT be sanctioned, lose office or have unsuccessful careers.
Society takes part in the role of "victim".. to such a degree that the individual victim
is recognized only inasmuch as they are (were) a part of society to begin with. (State represents the injured public, not the individual, etc.) Why shouldn't society share the defendant's interest in a fair trial when society is the victim and the financier of the prosecution?
Hm.. I guess no one else could CLAIM the rights to a fair trial but the defendant. But I'm still curious if interests IN those rights being honored should/could be recognized.