Do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Please explain.

Victims' rights and the Clery Act both serve as a protection from the accused. I believe acts protect victims of crimes. However, while protecting victims from the crimes of their accused, it is not reasonably protecting the accused. The accused will not be covered under the victim's rights act; the accused is presumption guilty. The 6th Amendment: Provides for a speedy trial, trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses & the assistance of counsel, which are steps taken before guilt or innocents is considered. The very existence of "Victims Rights" before a conviction could support the idea that the accused is guilty.

The federal government funds the Clery Act to assist college students against campus crimes. Colleges can share information about crime on their campuses. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, would like to scrap the Clery Act because it shows no value. Protection for the victim but nothing for the accused. I agree with Sen. Claire McCaskill that Clery Act needs to be updated. I believe Sen. McCaskill just wanted more investigation into these crimes. Cleary Act is misleading because it only counts incidents reported to campus security authorities. If a student confides in a religious adviser or mental health counselor, that person does not have to report the information to a school's Clery Act compliance office. In cases of sexual assault, they can skew the numbers.

If this is public information, then every college and university should post information about the crimes on the campuses. It's unfair to the parent and the student to withhold this information from the public.