Criminal Justice

[liadnan]

.. and finally, before I actually do some work, this, via Psychonomy on an email list: "Families to Speak Out In Court:

Relatives of murder and manslaughter victims are to be given the right to be represented in court as part of a pilot project in five areas of the UK.

[...]

From April, the scheme will see a "victim's advocate", a family member for example, making a statement in murder and manslaughter trials.

I really don't think this is a great idea. Criminal justice is supposed, in my view, to be about actions being judged and condemned by the state. It is by design that the crown prosecutes, not usually someone acting for the victim or their family, because it is thought right to put some distance between the judgment and punishment of the accused, where society says "this is wrong" and the emotional involvement of those who have suffered, as part of the checks designed to ensure a fair trial for someone potentially facing a serious penal sentence. And what if the victim has no one to speak for them, as someone on the list pointed out? Does the accused get an easier ride? Criminal law is the assertion of the authority of the state and of the society that state represents, not the retribution of the injured: the latter is what the civil courts are for. The distinction between tort and crime evolved for a reason.

Comments

[lexin.livejournal.com]

You put into words why the news made my teeth clench in concern.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

*muffled foot stamping from the back*

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

But why?

If they *really* want to make the families feel involved [and I can't understand why they would wish that - criminal justice is not retribution], they ought to give them a time slot between the judgment and the sentencing. This is just going to place an additional presumption of guilt on the accused, unless of course the family says stuff like 'Whoever killed so and so did this to us' instead of 'This guy caused this to happen to my family and me'. And I don't see the latter happening.

[liadnan]

I think that is the idea actually. But it would still precede, and, I would argue have an effect on, sentencing.

[liadnan]

By contrast, crown advocates are barred from making representations on sentence, or were the last I studied this stuff. So they can't say such and such a crime deserves a particularly stiff sentence.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

It's the same here. The judge decides the punishment and you can't ask for a more severe one.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but at least the question of guilt could be settled before bringing in the emotional testimonies.

Also, I can't help but wonder what the psychological/emotional impact would be on the families if the accused is acquitted after they have had their say. I wouldn't be surprised if it felt like a fresh blow.

[sobelle.livejournal.com]

Agreed... although it's what we do in California...
I understand the idea of giving the ~survivors~ the chance to speak out and effect ~closure~ but mostly it seems to be alot of extreme emotion inside the Courtroom as opposed to outside the Courtroom where most of them have already spent days with the media...as the case is being tried in the court of public opinion.

My personal experience with a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the torture and murder of 2 of my friends (the 3rd lived and testified against him) is that no amount of Courtroom catharsis would have given respite from the grief and anger... parole hearings, although less dramatic, continually give the survivors the opportunity to speak out against the convicted.

I'm not convinced it solves anything... from the survivors pain and loss to the loss of any sort of appearance of justice in the Court. (we jalso ust got appointed on another death penalty case for an alledged cop killer yesterday)


ymmv

[carezza.livejournal.com]

Having seen the effect of victim impact testimony first hand and written appeals (well, part of them!) based around such testimony, this scares me. Of course with judges not juries sentencing it will probably have less outrageous results here, but the potential is there. The sentence corresponds scarily with the perceived 'worth' of the victim.

Nothing in my mind will ever beat the "canine victim impact" statement in a case which I was involved in post-conviction. Basically the victim was so unlikable that the only VIT that they could find was that her dogs were upset after she died. Amazingly, its admissability was upheld on appeal. God bless Louisiana.

[aliandrik.livejournal.com]

Agree entirely. Justice should be as objective as possible - that seems to me to be one of the most basic tennets of it. I appreciate the effort to provide closure (god I hate that word), but I just don't think a court is the right place to do it.