Adnan Syed’s legal saga, chronicled in the hit “Serial” podcast, is a blockbuster story, and for good reason. As an attorney, I’ve been following the many updates in this case. But as executive director of a victims’ rights organization that has promoted thoughtful and safe reform efforts for years, I’ve been dismayed to see a troubling — and frankly, false — narrative develop in recent weeks: that there’s a growing divide between advocates of victims’ rights and criminal justice reform.
When Syed’s murder conviction in the 1999 slaying of Baltimore County high school student Hae Min Lee was vacated because of prosecutorial and investigative failures, the headlines understandably started pouring in. And they kept coming as the conviction was reinstated — likely temporarily — by a state appellate court last month because a lower Maryland court didn’t provide Lee’s family members adequate notice of a crucial hearing leading to Syed’s release.
Some of the headlines were dumbfounding, particularly an Associated Press article titled “Adnan Syed case pits victims’ rights against justice reform,” which was carried online and in publications across the U.S.
The truth is that there’s a lot of common ground between the goals of victims’ rights advocates and those pushing for criminal justice reform. Such “us vs. them” narratives, while presumably useful for attracting readers, are unfortunately fostering a false sense of conflict and deepening a divide between two sides that ultimately want the same thing: justice and healing.
Let’s start with the basics: Victims’ rights and criminal justice reform are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, the majority of crime victims and survivors want criminal justice reform that includes prevention and rehabilitation. An Alliance for Safety and Justice survey released in 2016 found that 1 in 3 victims want people who commit crimes to receive rehabilitation, mental health treatment, drug treatment and community service instead of just incarceration.
Let’s not forget that many people who are incarcerated are themselves victims of crime — and they have even fewer rights, advocates or services available to them.
Polarizing narratives about the need for victims’ rights and the need for criminal justice reform being opposed will only hurt the reform movement. Both survivors and justice-involved individuals — along with their respective advocates — need to be involved for changes to be successful.
In this particular case, the appellate court’s ruling was a reflection of the state of Maryland’s failure to uphold its own constitutional requirement to treat victims with dignity and respect. It wasn’t a ruling on Syed’s innocence or guilt, and the decision was certainly not the fault of Hae Min Lee’s family members.
Survivors, victims of crimes and their family members have a right to speak at such hearings. It’s a crucial part of their healing process. At the same time, the state’s failure to properly include a victim’s family does not mean someone who may have been wrongfully convicted should remain incarcerated.
Look no further than the AP article mentioned above to see why this divisive narrative is counterproductive.
None of the victim’s family members or advocates were quoted. The writer didn’t even mention Hae Min Lee’s name until the 10th paragraph.
And that came after a volatile quote from University of Maryland law professor David Colbert, who called the victims’ rights movement “a very powerful lobby that wants a reserve seat at the head of the criminal justice table” and claimed the appellate court’s ruling “certainly seems to satisfy their agenda.”
That’s flat-out wrong. As a victims’ rights organization, we want survivors and victims to have that “reserve seat,” along with all who are directly impacted, and to be truly heard — or, at the very least, actually interviewed for articles in which victims’ rights are being directly implicated.
____
ABOUT THE WRITER
Renée Williams is the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime.
