With the horrors of her abduction slowly fading away over the past few years, 17-year-old Elizabeth Smart must now dredge them up once more to testify in the upcoming trial of one of her alleged kidnappers, Brian David Mitchell. Mitchell is charged with abducting the teen at knifepoint from her Salt Lake City home in early March 2002. He is accused of holding her against her will for the next nine months.
While she was with Mitchell, Smart asserts that she was forced to participate in a marriage ceremony helping him carry out his religious prophesies. During her time in captivity she was required to don a veil that revealed only her eyes and remain mute in public. Smart was identified after a woman telephoned police when she recognized Mitchell. The police discovered Elizabeth was with him, and she was finally freed.
Now, in her quest to exonerate Mitchell, criminal defense attorney Kimberly Clark is beginning to subpoena Smart's records in an attempt to attack her credibility. Clark's actions seem to follow the recent trend of being so consumed in its desire to protect the rights of the accused that the victim is further traumatized by the legal system in the process of the criminal proceedings.
Perhaps the most troubling part of these subpoenas is the thought of what the information might be used for. Does Clark hope to prove that Elizabeth wasn't a virgin before she was abducted, therefore making it more difficult to prove that Mitchell raped her? Can she, in good conscience, try to manipulate the jury into believing that Elizabeth was troubled and went willingly?
In cases as horrendous as this, one has to wonder if the defendant should be given leeway in their defense. Should the accused be able to attack the victim's credibility when the victim is vulnerable and there is no doubt that the accused is the perpetrator?
It is time that states take steps to prevent minors from suffering further psychological damage due to questioning of them in criminal proceedings. Children should not be forced to undergo cross-examination by defense attorneys who will undoubtedly traumatize them.
If the defense attorney wishes to rebut the child's testimony, they can do that by presenting factual evidence. If they feel this evidence is insufficient they can also allow their client to testify. Although the defendant does not have to testify, it is better that they give up this constitutional right for the child's
protection.
Furthermore, the child's testimony should be videotaped and shown to the jury so that the child will not be intimidated by the presence of the defendant and countless others in the courtroom. This will make it easier for the child to tell the truth and make the process less traumatic for them.
With a recent increase in media attention on cases that involve young victims, it is vital that we begin to take steps to protect the interests of the accusers. Those who question the credibility of children often fail to see just how vulnerable they are. If the child is lying, there should be other ways to ascertain the truth rather than forcing participation in such an antagonistic system.
Elizabeth's safe recovery after such a long time period was truly miraculous. Millions of people, including those, like myself, who have never met her, were touched by the story and prayed for her daily. I honestly thought the worst was over when she was returned safely. But with such a flawed justice system, I can't help but wonder if a new ordeal is beginning for her.
It is time that we as Americans take steps to increase victims' rights, particularly in cases in which children are victimized. When the legal system is so concerned with protecting the defendant at the expense of the victim, reform is clearly need.
Micaela Frudden is a junior majoring in accounting.
