The Supreme Court has a greater obligation to protect the rights of victims than those of criminals?

Answer 1

Neither. They have an obligation to uphold the law. The chips fall where they may.

Answer: The Supreme Court, as does every other branch of the United States government, has an absolute responsibility to protect the rights of individuals. This is the Supreme Law of the Land and the only purpose of this government to begin with. If the Supreme Court is to uphold the law then they must begin by upholding an individuals rights. If a person has been accused of abrogating or derogating the rights of someone else, i.e. murder, then that person accused of such crime is entitled a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This means there must be sufficient enough evidence to bring charges against this individual to begin with and once those charges have been made there is a process of trial that must be done in a speedy manner and the burden of proving guilt is placed upon the prosecution. If the prosecution is not able to effectively establish guilt, and a jury or judge lets the accused go, this is because of the law. The law has insisted the rights of that individual be respected. This does not discount the rights of the victim who has surely had their rights abrogated and derogated, but assuming it was murder, that victim can only rely upon the government sworn to uphold the law to effectively investigate this murder to effectively establish guilt upon that person they are investigating and to effectively prove this guilt in a court of law. That the government is held to this standard does not elevate the rights of a criminal over the rights of a victim. It holds as paramount the rights of all.