"It turns out CEOs are way more likely to be psychopaths than any other job title... About 1% of the human population are psychopaths. But CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person"
The article is perfect anecdotal illustration of this.
It's kind of sad that we've built a business environment where being a psychopath actively helps, not hurts, your climb to the top.
> About 1% of the human population are psychopaths. But CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person, according to journalist Jon Ronson. He spent two years researching this, and published a book titled “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry.”
So the cited article suffers from the same ambiguity. I wonder what Jon Ronson actually wrote. Google was not helpful :(
Where the behaviour becomes toxic is where the line is drawn. The surgeon who decides one patient isn't worthy of attention, the butcher who needlessly injures animals, the salesperson who defrauds sales figures.
Maybe YOU don't want a CEO to be reluctant about laying people off. I like working in places where my humanity has some value, even if it's not the most important thing. Maybe YOU don't want a surgeon who won't nick an artery if she thinks she can get away with it, because death has a strange appeal to her, but I like living.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but so's your statement. We don't need psychopaths, we need people who can keep their emotions in check. Training, exercise, mediation, and drugs are all useful tools for this.
And then your leg gets cut off at the wrong angle since his hands are not under his control due to emotional connection. or He doesn't cut it off and then your diseases or issue spreads and your whole body gets paralysed.
or they have sufficient empathy to know that what they're doing might be painful but will ultimately save your life or increase your quality of life, and thus is absolutely worth doing.
A terrible and disingenuous trope. Surgeons make numerous decisions during surgery that require extraordinary empathy to deliver the best outcome. And, unsurprisingly, surgery outcomes are strongly correlated with strong doctor-patient relationships.
Moreover, your use of the word "handle" is peculiar. Modern operating rooms are not horror movie sets.
(I apologize for my aggressiveness. This is a major pet peeve!)
You can make the correct decision for the patient by wishing for the best outcome for them. It does not mean you have to have empathy for them. Empathy is the ability to place yourself in another's position.
Let me give you another example. I'm an expert poker player. I understand why worse players play the way they do, but I can't empathize with it. I simply can't put myself in a position where I'd play so poorly, so I can only say I understand it from a "they're bad, so they make mistakes" point of view. But this does not preclude me from making thousands of dollars at the casino from said players. Someone who is able to better empathize with that person might also make more basic strategy mistakes than me and they won't profit as much.
Empathy does not guarantee better outcomes. A doctor could have a great relationship with a person and still not able to empathize fully with their issue.
These are terrible observations. Are you sure you're not the psychopath?
Of course you want a butcher to to have empathy for animals. This ensures they treat the animals humanely. What you don't want is for a butcher to be overcome by emotion every time they have to kill an animal.
Of course you want a salesperson to care about rejections, how are they to improve their sales tactics? What you don't want is for them to take every rejection personally.
Of course you want a CEO to be reluctant about laying people off. It should be one of the most self-scrutinized decisions they make. If they are willing to do it on a whim, that's not a CEO you want to work for.
IMO, there's no way to treat animals humanely while also killing them to eat them just for their taste, there are perfectly good replacements for all the nutrients you can argue meat provides.
Even in "Humane" Farms there is sexual violation and exploitation (via forced insemination), separation of mothers from their babies, routine mutilations (debeaking, castration, dehorning) and many other things that disregard the animal's instincts and preferences.
> Of course you want a butcher to to have empathy for animals. This ensures they treat the animals humanely. What you don't want is for a butcher to be overcome by emotion every time they have to kill an animal.
Do you have any idea what it's like to routinely slaughter small to medium sized animals? I'm sitting here wondering how that could not be very difficult for a normal, well-adjusted person to do for any extended period of time. Doesn't imply pure psycopathy, however. Perhaps 'psychopathic tendencies' would be a more apt phrasing.
While the headline is designed to spark outrage, after reading the article, not only do I understand why the sentence is so light, I'm glad it is. The police were way out of line and completely disregarded the accused's rights. The only effective way to incentivize the police/prosecutors not to behave this way is to let people we strongly believe to be guilty all but get away with it. No monetary fine has ever been effective in changing public servants' behavior, and threat of being fired doesn't seem effective either. We have to admit that criminalizing rights violations in any but the most egregious circumstances is unreasonable and could barely be enforced, let alone passed as legislation for political reasons. So what choice does society have left to change this behavior but leverage bad actors' conscience and, frankly, pride, by throwing away their hard work? (Well, the work was not hard enough, that's the point.) Society must bear the cost as well, but as long as it does so consistently, then the cost will be worth it.
The problem is that there is no consistency when it comes to our justice system. The only reason that the evidence was ruled inadmissible is because an attorney was good enough to make the case. For every CEO there are hundreds of poor people of color who are unfairly discriminated against and have no recourse available.
I remember my first words as a newly born white baby: "...lawyer". Shortly after, a pigeon swooped into my bedroom and dropped a pair of keys into my crib with a note attached reading "This is the key to your safety deposit box where you will find estate papers along with a second set of keys that belong to a 110ft Schooner, welcome to the club lad."
FWIW, this CEO happens to be a (rich) person of color. In our society, color is a handicap, but, if you do manage to get money... boy, oh boy, is money an aid.
This objection applies to essentially every warrant application. In this case, the answer is not only, "yes, in part because people are stupid enough not to destroy evidence, and in part because there are plenty of judges who would be happy to be woken in the middle of the night to rubber-stamp such a warrant at a moment's notice", but also "yes, and the court agreed", and "it doesn't matter, because the police not being able to do whatever they think is best whenever they think it's best is the whole point!"
>The police were way out of line and completely disregarded the accused's rights.
First things first, the victim has rights too. Moreover, if the police were called to respond to a domestic disturbance/dispute and come to find a women who was obviously beaten, but likely to afraid to give a statement, the police were not exactly out of line, they made a decision to secure the video evidence of the crime before the accused had the opportunity to destroy it.
Sure the evidence was suppressed under the 4th Amendment/illegal search and seizure/fruit of the poisons tree doctrine, but I could easily see (and have seen) Judge's arrive at different decisions in similar cases, for example drug cases where the defendant was actively flushing the evidence. You can't exactly blame the officers for not having a crystal ball, knowing what Judge this case would ultimately go before, and how the Judge would rule.
Nevertheless, you can't exactly feel bad for the defendant, even if you think his rights were violated, because the Courts worked exactly as they are supposed to and upheld his rights resulting in 47 felony counts essentially going away and him being able to plea out to 3 years probation, 1 year domestic violence courses and 25 hours community service. Keep in mind the prosecutors could have easily still gone to trial and convicted him without the video.
This is a pointless and inane sentiment. Which of the victim's rights were violated here? US law, for better or for worse, recognizes no right to justice, nor protection. [Edit to add:] Of course the reported crime is completely unjust in an ethical sense; that's why letting someone get away with it is difficult but effective. We can't say, "oh, well we can't enforce the 4A law in the really important cases, so we'll just let people get away with petty theft in these cases but not any serious crimes", because the police, just like us, don't really care about petty theft all that much. If you think that we should avoid this solution with truly heinous crimes like rape and murder (and, in practice, I think you might find fewer successful 4A challenges in those cases), then you sure as hell better let "mere" domestic abusers successfully defend their rights. I realize that's a horrifying sentiment, but again, the more horrifying this is, the more effective it is and the more it tends to prove my point.
The officers may not have a crystal ball, but the implications of Fourth Amendment case law is crystal clear on this point. I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison. If he had been then the outcome should be different. Otherwise, we could conclude that because any digital evidence is more easily destroyed than physical evidence then the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply to digital evidence. I have no evidence to suggest that that conclusion is not every bit as absurd as it seems on its face. The police shouldn't be worried about how the judge will rule, toeing the line as closely as they can; but they should instead adopt a conservative approach ensuring that they actually follow the law in all cases to avoid this exact scenario. Therefore the police were absolutely out of line, because their actions were likely the direct and sole cause the defendant was not convicted.
I don't feel bad for the defendant, not even a little bit—why would I? He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job. His rights were vindicated, as they should be. If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have. If on account of his status they chose not to do so, then I would agree with the unspoken sentiment of preferential treatment, and I would condemn that. However, I tend to take the evidence before us at face value: the prosecution offered a lousy plea deal, so they probably didn't think they could do significantly better. Now, I won't deny that it's possibly thanks to a good lawyer and the prospect of a sympathetic jury that the prospects for a conviction were so low, but it was first and foremost due to an unlawful search by the police. Unless you'd like to abolish the rights to counsel and jury trials, I think we just have to deal with the other aspects as they are.
By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated.
>I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison.
The 4th Amendment is not nearly as crystal clear as you say, it helps to read some case law on point. For example you will quickly find in the drug cases it is more a matter of the ability/likelihood the evidence could/will be destroy that is the litmus test (for a starting point read cases on the "knock and announce rule") not actually being in the process of destroying the evidence. Just thinking logically, officers would never be in a position to make a determination someone is behind closed doors flushing drugs or in front of their computer deleting files. And as we all know police can enter a dwelling without a warrant based on "exigent circumstances".
>If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have.
It is not up to the prosecutors, the Defendant has the right to take a plea.
>He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job.
Actually the Defendant did not get away with it, though I suppose you can make up your own definition, getting away with it in a criminal law context implies a dismissal, no info, nolle prosequi, or not guilty. Instead the Defendant took a plea to the charges, was placed on probation, violated probation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 12 months jail for the underlying crime. Not to mention he still has to face the new charges on the new crime.
I think you are trying to argue that but for the officers searching/seizing the video evidence in violation of the 4th Amendment, and subsequent suppression, that the officers could have legally obtained that video evidence with a warrant and used it. Possible, but very unlikely, in fact what likely would have happened is exactly what the officers were concerned about, the evidence would have been destroyed. Then what? The prosecutor would have been in the same boat as the prosecutor was in anyway, no video evidence.
> By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated.
You haven't actually made an argument here. We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... Can you provide the definition(s) you're thinking of which establish that crime victims have had the correct kind of right violated?
In context, we're looking for rights of the kind which we would need to consider when judging the correctness of the post you responded to; i.e., rights which somehow should influence the legal procedures to which the accused is subject. My edit above was intended to reflect that I do think that the victim has suffered some kind of immoral and illegal behavior, but I do not agree that this implies, a priori, that the victim has suffered a breach of rights.
>We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind...
You need to start at the very beginning, the definition of legal right. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start. Basically a legal right is something the law provides a legal remedy for if violated. Since you don't think the victim in this case had a right not to be kicked and punched against her will, I am really curious what you definition of legal right is.
In this case the victim had a lawful right not to be kicked and punched against her will, and when she was the law provides her with remedies (both in the criminal and civil context). Note when ones rights are violated in the criminal context (e.g. you are a victim of a crime) that triggers yet more rights, including but not limited to, the right to be present, the right to be protected, and the right to privacy. [1]
Just as an intellectual challenge try to conceive of being the victim of a crime, any crime, in which the law does not provide you with a remedy. And yes, even when a victim has been killed, the law still provides a remedy, for example, your family can sue civilly and/or be present during the criminal case and even make recommendations to the prosecutor.
You're right about civil remedies; I was overlooking them because I was focused narrowly on victims' rights relevant to the criminal case in the article. I'm hardly a legal expert, but from what I know, in the US common law system victims have no rights pertaining to criminal trials (at least pre-sentencing). Using the Black's Law definition, victims/complainants have no remedy available if the prosecution declines to try the accused, or tries them ineffectively, or fails to secure a conviction, or fails to secure a punishment to the complainant's liking. Such remedies might be available in other systems; for example, I believe that it was once the case that private individuals could pursue criminal cases in the UK. In the US that right seems to be reserved to "the people" as represented by the government. Therefore no rights accrue to the victims in discontinued criminal matters.
Note that your article specifically states at the end that many of these "rights" don't come with causes of action. Going by the Black's Law definition, then, they aren't rights at all. Indeed, they seem to be mostly sentiment and bluster; without an attached cause of action, if a victim finds himself enjoying any of the mentioned privileges, it is merely thanks to the benevolence of the court and the state. That's a great thing, but not a "right".
[Edit to clarify:] The "sentiment and bluster" is in calling these bills "Victims' Rights" bills. For example, passing a law granting victims the "right" to be notified by the prosecutor's office of changes in the case status which doesn't grant any causes of action against the prosecutor's office when they fail to do so amounts to the legislature stating, "It's the belief of this legislature that it'd be really a great thing if prosecutors did this". Encoding that statement into law instead of just a passing a motion to that effect is what's "sentiment and bluster".
If your entire point about Victim's rights was simply that they don't have a right to bring a private criminal prosecution, I misunderstood and that is correct. There is no right for individuals to bring private causes of action in criminal court, at least that I am aware of. Moreover, the prosecutor represents the State not the Victim.
Though in practice Victim's rights in the criminal context are more than sentiment and bluster, just one example, before accepting a plea a Judge will have the Victim testify at the plea hearing or at minimum confirm on the record the prosecutor has conferred with the Victim regarding the offer and that the Victim has no objections.
Also when talking about Victim's rights, you can not focus entirely on the criminal context you have to look at the civil too, if for no other reason than the standard is different, beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). This is how you see cases like OJ, acquitted in the criminal murder trial, but guilty in the civil wrongful death trial.
Additionally, there are even civil causes of action, that in my opinion, tend to blur the line between civil and criminal because of the liberty interests at stake of the Defendant. For example, in this case aside from the Defendant being able to sue civilly outside the criminal prosecution, should could also bring a petition for restraining order in civil court. Such an Order enforcing the Victim's rights would limit the rights/liberties of the Defendant all outside the criminal context.
Further, there are other types of actions, that I would define as quasi-criminal, but are clearly civil in the jurisdictional sense. Take Qui Tam lawsuits, literally meaning "on behalf of the King", these are triggered by the Whistle Blower Statute(s) and provide a private individual the right to sue civilly and collect money on behalf of the Government.
Society isn't bearing any costs. There is one woman who's bearing the costs of your high standards of righteousness by being kicked in the head/groin/etc. more than a hundred times.
Now I do get the sentiment, but in the context of a a few well-publicized cases of "alleged" police misconduct over the last year that went nowhere in terms of sanctioning it just rings a bit hollow.
You're also awfully quick to dismiss alternatives. I don't see how letting this guy off the hook is a stronger incentive for those police officers than kicking them off the force. In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Add some career-slowing disincentives up the chain of command and I'm pretty sure you'll see results.
> In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders.
Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't have this power, nor the power to implement "career-slowing disincentives". Now, if the police unions come in and say, "You know what? We're tired of criminals getting away with crimes, so how about we agree to implement real punishments for rights violations, in exchange for not throwing out evidence when mistakes are made?", then I would be entirely in favor of the courts seriously considering such an arrangement, even though some might argue that it subverts the rule of law. There's an alternative for you.
Why does everyone on Hacker New think we should have some sort of "angry mob rule" where people who weren't privy to the actual evidence and hearings decide how outrageous a crime is and have an Internet Poll to see what the punishment should be?
Why do most of the people here hate the right to a trial, the right to face your accused, and the right of a hearing to determine sentencing?
64 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadThe article is perfect anecdotal illustration of this.
It's kind of sad that we've built a business environment where being a psychopath actively helps, not hurts, your climb to the top.
http://thehustle.co/your-ceo-is-probably-a-psychopath
So 4%?
It'd be 4% if it were "four times as likely".
From http://thehustle.co/your-ceo-is-probably-a-psychopath
> FACT: 4% of CEOs are psychopaths
> About 1% of the human population are psychopaths. But CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person, according to journalist Jon Ronson. He spent two years researching this, and published a book titled “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry.”
So the cited article suffers from the same ambiguity. I wonder what Jon Ronson actually wrote. Google was not helpful :(
You don't want a surgeon to have empathy when he's cutting your leg off.
You don't want a butcher to have empathy for animals.
You don't want a salesperson to care about rejections.
You don't want a CEO to be reluctant about laying people off.
Where the behaviour becomes toxic is where the line is drawn. The surgeon who decides one patient isn't worthy of attention, the butcher who needlessly injures animals, the salesperson who defrauds sales figures.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but so's your statement. We don't need psychopaths, we need people who can keep their emotions in check. Training, exercise, mediation, and drugs are all useful tools for this.
Moreover, your use of the word "handle" is peculiar. Modern operating rooms are not horror movie sets.
(I apologize for my aggressiveness. This is a major pet peeve!)
Let me give you another example. I'm an expert poker player. I understand why worse players play the way they do, but I can't empathize with it. I simply can't put myself in a position where I'd play so poorly, so I can only say I understand it from a "they're bad, so they make mistakes" point of view. But this does not preclude me from making thousands of dollars at the casino from said players. Someone who is able to better empathize with that person might also make more basic strategy mistakes than me and they won't profit as much.
Empathy does not guarantee better outcomes. A doctor could have a great relationship with a person and still not able to empathize fully with their issue.
Of course you want a butcher to to have empathy for animals. This ensures they treat the animals humanely. What you don't want is for a butcher to be overcome by emotion every time they have to kill an animal.
Of course you want a salesperson to care about rejections, how are they to improve their sales tactics? What you don't want is for them to take every rejection personally.
Of course you want a CEO to be reluctant about laying people off. It should be one of the most self-scrutinized decisions they make. If they are willing to do it on a whim, that's not a CEO you want to work for.
Same for the doctor one, but you get my point.
Even in "Humane" Farms there is sexual violation and exploitation (via forced insemination), separation of mothers from their babies, routine mutilations (debeaking, castration, dehorning) and many other things that disregard the animal's instincts and preferences.
Sorry for the rant.
Do you have any idea what it's like to routinely slaughter small to medium sized animals? I'm sitting here wondering how that could not be very difficult for a normal, well-adjusted person to do for any extended period of time. Doesn't imply pure psycopathy, however. Perhaps 'psychopathic tendencies' would be a more apt phrasing.
If feminists stopped bitching about microaggressions and dealt with cases like this I'd have a lot more respect for them.
- http://valleywag.gawker.com/ceo-who-pled-guilty-to-domestic-...
- https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/26/we-are-dropping-radiumone-...
And a victim.
Shocking.
First things first, the victim has rights too. Moreover, if the police were called to respond to a domestic disturbance/dispute and come to find a women who was obviously beaten, but likely to afraid to give a statement, the police were not exactly out of line, they made a decision to secure the video evidence of the crime before the accused had the opportunity to destroy it.
Sure the evidence was suppressed under the 4th Amendment/illegal search and seizure/fruit of the poisons tree doctrine, but I could easily see (and have seen) Judge's arrive at different decisions in similar cases, for example drug cases where the defendant was actively flushing the evidence. You can't exactly blame the officers for not having a crystal ball, knowing what Judge this case would ultimately go before, and how the Judge would rule.
Nevertheless, you can't exactly feel bad for the defendant, even if you think his rights were violated, because the Courts worked exactly as they are supposed to and upheld his rights resulting in 47 felony counts essentially going away and him being able to plea out to 3 years probation, 1 year domestic violence courses and 25 hours community service. Keep in mind the prosecutors could have easily still gone to trial and convicted him without the video.
This is a pointless and inane sentiment. Which of the victim's rights were violated here? US law, for better or for worse, recognizes no right to justice, nor protection. [Edit to add:] Of course the reported crime is completely unjust in an ethical sense; that's why letting someone get away with it is difficult but effective. We can't say, "oh, well we can't enforce the 4A law in the really important cases, so we'll just let people get away with petty theft in these cases but not any serious crimes", because the police, just like us, don't really care about petty theft all that much. If you think that we should avoid this solution with truly heinous crimes like rape and murder (and, in practice, I think you might find fewer successful 4A challenges in those cases), then you sure as hell better let "mere" domestic abusers successfully defend their rights. I realize that's a horrifying sentiment, but again, the more horrifying this is, the more effective it is and the more it tends to prove my point.
The officers may not have a crystal ball, but the implications of Fourth Amendment case law is crystal clear on this point. I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison. If he had been then the outcome should be different. Otherwise, we could conclude that because any digital evidence is more easily destroyed than physical evidence then the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply to digital evidence. I have no evidence to suggest that that conclusion is not every bit as absurd as it seems on its face. The police shouldn't be worried about how the judge will rule, toeing the line as closely as they can; but they should instead adopt a conservative approach ensuring that they actually follow the law in all cases to avoid this exact scenario. Therefore the police were absolutely out of line, because their actions were likely the direct and sole cause the defendant was not convicted.
I don't feel bad for the defendant, not even a little bit—why would I? He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job. His rights were vindicated, as they should be. If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have. If on account of his status they chose not to do so, then I would agree with the unspoken sentiment of preferential treatment, and I would condemn that. However, I tend to take the evidence before us at face value: the prosecution offered a lousy plea deal, so they probably didn't think they could do significantly better. Now, I won't deny that it's possibly thanks to a good lawyer and the prospect of a sympathetic jury that the prospects for a conviction were so low, but it was first and foremost due to an unlawful search by the police. Unless you'd like to abolish the rights to counsel and jury trials, I think we just have to deal with the other aspects as they are.
By definition victims of crimes have had their rights violated.
>I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison.
The 4th Amendment is not nearly as crystal clear as you say, it helps to read some case law on point. For example you will quickly find in the drug cases it is more a matter of the ability/likelihood the evidence could/will be destroy that is the litmus test (for a starting point read cases on the "knock and announce rule") not actually being in the process of destroying the evidence. Just thinking logically, officers would never be in a position to make a determination someone is behind closed doors flushing drugs or in front of their computer deleting files. And as we all know police can enter a dwelling without a warrant based on "exigent circumstances".
>If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have.
It is not up to the prosecutors, the Defendant has the right to take a plea.
>He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job.
Actually the Defendant did not get away with it, though I suppose you can make up your own definition, getting away with it in a criminal law context implies a dismissal, no info, nolle prosequi, or not guilty. Instead the Defendant took a plea to the charges, was placed on probation, violated probation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 12 months jail for the underlying crime. Not to mention he still has to face the new charges on the new crime.
I think you are trying to argue that but for the officers searching/seizing the video evidence in violation of the 4th Amendment, and subsequent suppression, that the officers could have legally obtained that video evidence with a warrant and used it. Possible, but very unlikely, in fact what likely would have happened is exactly what the officers were concerned about, the evidence would have been destroyed. Then what? The prosecutor would have been in the same boat as the prosecutor was in anyway, no video evidence.
You haven't actually made an argument here. We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind... Can you provide the definition(s) you're thinking of which establish that crime victims have had the correct kind of right violated?
In context, we're looking for rights of the kind which we would need to consider when judging the correctness of the post you responded to; i.e., rights which somehow should influence the legal procedures to which the accused is subject. My edit above was intended to reflect that I do think that the victim has suffered some kind of immoral and illegal behavior, but I do not agree that this implies, a priori, that the victim has suffered a breach of rights.
You need to start at the very beginning, the definition of legal right. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start. Basically a legal right is something the law provides a legal remedy for if violated. Since you don't think the victim in this case had a right not to be kicked and punched against her will, I am really curious what you definition of legal right is.
In this case the victim had a lawful right not to be kicked and punched against her will, and when she was the law provides her with remedies (both in the criminal and civil context). Note when ones rights are violated in the criminal context (e.g. you are a victim of a crime) that triggers yet more rights, including but not limited to, the right to be present, the right to be protected, and the right to privacy. [1]
Just as an intellectual challenge try to conceive of being the victim of a crime, any crime, in which the law does not provide you with a remedy. And yes, even when a victim has been killed, the law still provides a remedy, for example, your family can sue civilly and/or be present during the criminal case and even make recommendations to the prosecutor.
[1] https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp
Note that your article specifically states at the end that many of these "rights" don't come with causes of action. Going by the Black's Law definition, then, they aren't rights at all. Indeed, they seem to be mostly sentiment and bluster; without an attached cause of action, if a victim finds himself enjoying any of the mentioned privileges, it is merely thanks to the benevolence of the court and the state. That's a great thing, but not a "right".
[Edit to clarify:] The "sentiment and bluster" is in calling these bills "Victims' Rights" bills. For example, passing a law granting victims the "right" to be notified by the prosecutor's office of changes in the case status which doesn't grant any causes of action against the prosecutor's office when they fail to do so amounts to the legislature stating, "It's the belief of this legislature that it'd be really a great thing if prosecutors did this". Encoding that statement into law instead of just a passing a motion to that effect is what's "sentiment and bluster".
Though in practice Victim's rights in the criminal context are more than sentiment and bluster, just one example, before accepting a plea a Judge will have the Victim testify at the plea hearing or at minimum confirm on the record the prosecutor has conferred with the Victim regarding the offer and that the Victim has no objections.
Also when talking about Victim's rights, you can not focus entirely on the criminal context you have to look at the civil too, if for no other reason than the standard is different, beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). This is how you see cases like OJ, acquitted in the criminal murder trial, but guilty in the civil wrongful death trial.
Additionally, there are even civil causes of action, that in my opinion, tend to blur the line between civil and criminal because of the liberty interests at stake of the Defendant. For example, in this case aside from the Defendant being able to sue civilly outside the criminal prosecution, should could also bring a petition for restraining order in civil court. Such an Order enforcing the Victim's rights would limit the rights/liberties of the Defendant all outside the criminal context.
Further, there are other types of actions, that I would define as quasi-criminal, but are clearly civil in the jurisdictional sense. Take Qui Tam lawsuits, literally meaning "on behalf of the King", these are triggered by the Whistle Blower Statute(s) and provide a private individual the right to sue civilly and collect money on behalf of the Government.
Society isn't bearing any costs. There is one woman who's bearing the costs of your high standards of righteousness by being kicked in the head/groin/etc. more than a hundred times.
Now I do get the sentiment, but in the context of a a few well-publicized cases of "alleged" police misconduct over the last year that went nowhere in terms of sanctioning it just rings a bit hollow.
You're also awfully quick to dismiss alternatives. I don't see how letting this guy off the hook is a stronger incentive for those police officers than kicking them off the force. In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Add some career-slowing disincentives up the chain of command and I'm pretty sure you'll see results.
Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't have this power, nor the power to implement "career-slowing disincentives". Now, if the police unions come in and say, "You know what? We're tired of criminals getting away with crimes, so how about we agree to implement real punishments for rights violations, in exchange for not throwing out evidence when mistakes are made?", then I would be entirely in favor of the courts seriously considering such an arrangement, even though some might argue that it subverts the rule of law. There's an alternative for you.
Why do most of the people here hate the right to a trial, the right to face your accused, and the right of a hearing to determine sentencing?