Swiftness and certainty of punishment are indispensable to a successful administration of the criminal law. Undue delay between arrest and trial, or a long interval between trial and final disposition of appellate proceedings, weakens the criminal law in deterring potential offenders and gaining the respect of the public. This is especially true if the defendant is at large on bail. Protection of the rights of the accused, which makes unlikely the conviction of persons innocent of the crimes with which they are charged, is a fundamental component of the American system of jurisprudence, but the current extreme focus on the rights of the accused has undermined the swiftness and certainty of punishment in the administration of criminal law. The rights of the victim as well as those of the accused must be considered in the criminal law's administration. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, adopted in 1946, aim at balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim through the 'harmless error' rule, which provides that any trial error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded in appellate considerations. Unfortunately, this rule has been largely ignored so that many reversals and new trials have been ordered in cases where guilt is not doubted and may even be undisputed. Trials have thus been changed from determinations of justice into games of finding legal loopholes and taking advantage of legal technicalities that have little to do with issues of guilt and innocence. There is no need for a change in the law to prevent this problem; what is needed is a modification of attitudes, notably in appellate courts, such that the 'harmless error' rule is an important consideration in judicial decisions. Footnotes which include references are provided.