Murder victims relatiosn to speak in court?

[El D]

Why? Justice should never be personal.

[january_bug]

I get the idea of this, but I can't say I'm impressed by it, on first reading.  To me there is a risk of the court turning into a Jerry Springer type scenario.  I can see victims feeling that they have to turn up and wail and faint etc just to get the murderer put away for a while.  What if the family's grief is a quiet mourning and they are unable to "act it up" for the judge? 

Judges will continue to take into account any different factors when passing sentence.  They already take into account the loss felt by the family, this extra step therefore seems unecessary to me. 

Also, I know this will be voluntary, but I think families will feel obliged to speak, just to avoid looking like *.*.*.**.**.*.  I think families grieving loved ones should be allowed to mourn how THEY want to, and not feel obliged to "tabloid-ify" the process they are going through. 

[El D]

But that makes no sense eddie - if murder has been committed it has been committed, what is being punished is not the results of the crime but the crime itself. Or do we mourn the tramp less than the family man and therefore allocate differing values to their lives? To me it smacks of a pr attempt to pander to tabloid britains desire for justice to be related to moral outrage etc.

[jno]

you're right, El D, the whole point of a centralised justice system is that it takes matters of crime and punishment away from the private arena (where they once led to blood feuds and so forth), and so ensured punishments that were equal for all, or as near as possible.

This does require a high degree of faith in the system, though, and there have been a lot of high-profile failures in recent years, leaving families unsure if their interests are being properly represented. But the proper response is to improve the system, not to let the victims set the sentence.

[jake-the-peg]

I agree El D.

However I have a nasty feeling the whole idea is to make it personal.

It's what you get when political policy is set by focus groups and public opinion.

[kaktus]

I'm with you El D. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't like the idea of making the justice systems personal, and as far as I understand this from Eddies post, the idea is that if it there are devasted relatives behind, the offender would be punished more. To be honest this seems idiotic to me. A crime is a crime and doesn't become more or less wrong or bad or whatever just becomes somebody is left to grieve!

[El D]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02092005/344/victims-families-a ddress-trials.html

I can't being to stress how angry I am getting at this - it's illogical and against a lot of the things we have spent centuries trying to achieve.

'Asked directly whether these comments would affect the length of time the offender spent in jail, she said: "It might do."

She added: "If it means assisting the court in seeing the victim's perspective in the utmost serious of crimes then I think that is no bad thing.

"If it means the sentence is higher on a manslaughter than it might otherwise have been in the first instance without hearing from the victim's relatives, then I think that would be a good thing and that would be right.'

This woman has just lost all respect from me - she does not deserve her job and represents to me a clear danger to our justice system. She is pathetic - does she even understand what she is saying?

[kaktus]

I understand why you get mad El D! I would furious myself if a Danish politician came up with a suggestion like that. I don't know what else to say, I can only hope it will remain a suggestion...

BTW Eddie, I was saying anything about you, just that the only thing I knew about this suggestion was what you said, so my rant wasn't pointed at you- Sorry if it came out like that! :0)

[Lillabet]

It's actually something I find difficult as an issue. My first and strongest reaction is as most posters - Justice is meant to be blind. This is not a helpful development.

Impact statements in the US are widely reported and quoted from in the media and do seem to sensationalise trials. This does not happen with the written impact statements in the uk. Largely because they are only seen by the judge and officials. If the relatives are to speak in open court then this will be reported.

A more eloquent family could lead to a longer sentence. What about those unfortunates who have no one to speak for them. A homeless vagrant is tortured and killed. He has no friends, no traceable family. Does his life count for less when it comes to sentencing as a result...

But, I read a very powerful interview with the mother of Jane Longhurst who was murdered by a man she and her partner were friends with. It was a vicious murder involving rape and sexual torture. Her killer was into extremely violent internet porn sites which featured extreme sadism. His defence was that Jane had willingly chosen to cheat on her partner and play an active part in helping him fulfill his fantasies. She died when the game went too far and all he was guilty of was concealing her death. A vital part of the defence therefore was to present the victim as a person those who knew her did not recognise. All of his allegations were repeated in the media and her family longed to try to set the record straight as they saw her being maligned and having her character assassinated even after death.

I'm pretty sure impact statements are wrong but where such character assassination has taken place I can see why a relative would want to be able to 'set the record straight' for all to hear.

[El D]

Wouldn't a guilty verdict satisfy the same criteria? They are free to say whatever they like in the press after the trial - after an impartial sentencing decision has been reached. I see absolutely no logical or judicial reason for implementing such a procedure.

Justice is not individual; it is not about making people feel better; it is not about getting things 'off your chest'. If justice is to serve a higher goal than revenge then the role of the individual must be minimised to as great an extent as possible.

[Lillabet]

Hi El D, If our justice system worked as it was designed to then I would be with you all the way on this one. (In fact I think I still fall on the same side of the fence as you.)

The problem is, in my view, that media coverage prevents trials from being equal. I've argued in the past when discussing controversial cases such as the Bulger murder and moors murderers that there are different rules for those involved in the (tiny minority) of court cases where there is media interest.

The fact is that a 10 day trial will sometimes receive extensive coverage with lascivious attention paid to any mentions of ghoulish, kinky, or simply sexual behaviour. Once the trial is over aside from reporting the judges comments during sentencing the media tend to have moved on to the next story. As such any rebuttal of allegations made by the defence / defendant / media will not be as widely reported. This type of measure is aiming (probably badly) to redress this balance.

All I wanted to point out is that this measure will not skew a perfectly blind system as we don't have such a system, even though ours is better than most.