I had my car stolen a few months ago and went to court yesterday for it. Got the car back and everything. Well, they kept referring to me as “the witness” instead of “the victim”.
It got me thinking, do they still use the term “victim” or is “witness” less informative (to the people sitting in the pews) that I am the victim or something? I know I am a witness to the crime, that is true, but I’m also the victim. Why not just call me the victim? It states that I’m the victim in all the documents I received. This is in Maryland, btw.
No, I wasn’t testifying that day, but if she pleaded not guilty, it would’ve went to jury trial and I guess I would’ve testified then. It was a pre-trial hearing, well, I guess that’s what it was. In other words, she stood before the judge and the judge asked her if she was waiving her right to a jury trial, she said yes, then asked for a continuance and he granted it for her.
WAG: the court using the word ‘victim’ would imply that there has in fact been a crime. One possible line of defence would be that there has not been a crime (in your case, the defence could e.g. allege that you loaned your car to the defendant of your own free will, and now are lying about it), so officially referring to you as the victim (before the verdict, at least) would violate the court’s neutrality/your presumption of innocence.
Also ‘victim’ is more emotionally loaded than ‘witness’.
BTW it’s much the same in German courts (I am an occasional lay associate judge). The victim is referred as a witness in the official court papers (except when it’s a murder victim, of course; these usually don’t testify - I gather in that case it’s ‘the injured party’).
I’m always amused, sort of, when the burgler/rapist/robber/bad guy is shot by the homeowner, in the course of his typical garden variety crime activities. Almost invariably the news reports refer to him as “the victim”.
Sometimes the alleged victim of an alleged crime is known as the “complaintant” or “complaining witness.” To call that person the “victim” at trial would presuppose that there has been a crime committed (innocent until proven guilty, and all that), and be prejudically detrimental to the rights of the accused.
I got a press release at work the other day (I work at a newspaper) from the police station here in town about a robbery. The person who was robbed at gunpoint was not named, but simply referred to as “The Victim.”
But the police aren’t the courts, which is what the OP was asking about. As others have commented, victim is a word that carries certain assumptions, which courts have to be careful about allowing until there has been a verdict.