Why does the State intervene on Criminal Matters?

[Neilzinno]

The real reason is because the State doesn't have to intervene in criminal matters - you, as the victim, are not a party in a criminal matter. Because the Executive branch is exclusively granted the power to prosecute crimes, whether you make a "complaint" or not has no bearing on whether they decide to prosecute the defendant or not. In small state matters, most of the time, as a practical matter, they don't press forward without a complaint from the victim. There is no individual, private right to prosecute a crime. The State isn't representing you as an individual victim harmed by a crime, they're representing the people of the State as a collective.

Or, as said more eloquently:

"Understanding that the conception of Crime, as distinguished from that of Wrong or Tort [a civil, as opposed to a criminal action] and from that of Sin, involves the idea of injury to the State of collective community, we first find that the commonwealth, in literal conformity with the conception, itself interposed directly, and by isolated acts, to avenge itself on the author of the evil which it had suffered." Crime, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (quoting Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 320 (17th ed. 1901)).

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Neilzinno

The real reason is because the State doesn't have to intervene in criminal matters - you, as the victim, are not a party in a criminal matter. Because the Executive branch is exclusively granted the power to prosecute crimes, whether you make a "complaint" or not has no bearing on whether they decide to prosecute the defendant or not. In small state matters, most of the time, as a practical matter, they don't press forward without a complaint from the victim. There is no individual, private right to prosecute a crime. The State isn't representing you as an individual victim harmed by a crime, they're representing the people of the State as a collective.

Or, as said more eloquently:

"Understanding that the conception of Crime, as distinguished from that of Wrong or Tort [a civil, as opposed to a criminal action] and from that of Sin, involves the idea of injury to the State of collective community, we first find that the commonwealth, in literal conformity with the conception, itself interposed directly, and by isolated acts, to avenge itself on the author of the evil which it had suffered." Crime, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (quoting Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 320 (17th ed. 1901)).

This appears correct. Of course, it is up to Grand and Petty Jury to decide the matter before one can be convicted, under the Constitution(s).

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

Sadly, it is increasingly hard to get one's case to a jury today.

[Neilzinno]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

This appears correct. Of course, it is up to Grand and Petty Jury to decide the matter before one can be convicted, under the Constitution(s).

That's only partially correct - as I described in another thread, the right to indictment by Grand Jury has only been applied to the Federal, not state Government - i.e. in a federal criminal case you will see a grand jury, yet in a state criminal case in some states you will not.

A few other caveats: even in a federal case, the right to grand jury indictment is commonly waived as part of the plea bargaining process. Also, the federal grand jury has evolved into a glorified discovery tool by the prosecutor to circumvent the 4th amendment these days - it's not exactly a great "right". Additionally, while in a federal case you have a right to a grand jury, there is no Constitutional right for a defendant to APPEAR before a grand jury - if the prosecutor doesn't call you, you don't get to appear, even if you want to explain yourself. This is different under some state constitutions, like New York.

Lastly, the right to a grand jury only applies in "capital, or otherwise infamous" crimes, as per the 5th amendment. Typically, this means all felonies (punishable by more than a year in prison) - meaning in misdemeanors (punishable by less than a year in prison), you have no 5th amendment grand jury right.