Today I was reminded of a question I’ve always had: why does our legal system allow victim’s families to testify in court about how much pain they’ve suffered at their loss? I assume this is only during sentencing, but why allow it at all? What relevance does it have to justice?
The trial that reminded me of this question was the trial of the band manager who was sentenced to 4 years in prison for causing a terrible nightclub fire.
It’s relevant to the amount of damage caused by the defendant.
I’ve always wondered this myself, because it seems to make no legal sense. Does it *really *matter how much the victim was loved? What about a victim who had no family to come and testify to their grief? (“Well, Bob was a co-worker of mine. He was kind of a dick sometimes, but we all miss him.”)
Shouldn’t the sentence for a crime be the same whether the victim was a sweet, beloved family man or an ugly, brutish thug?
I’m assuming we are talking about criminal cases–not civil ones.
In a criminal case, the families and the direct victims (assuming they are alive) often get to testify about the impact that the crime has had on them. Other times they are allowed to submit a written victim impact statement.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v2n1/donahoe.html
http://crime.about.com/od/victims/a/impact.htm
Does that help?
In NSW families of crime victims are allowed to lodge Victim Impact Statements that are meant to be considered in sentencing. Here is a Law Reform Commission paper about the problems with the process.
Because in murder trials one side is speaking for the state and the other side is speaking for the defendant, and nobody is speaking for the victim. After the verdict, the defendant gets to have people tell the court about how wonderful they are and how they just made this one mistake. Having someone speak for the victim lets the court know how “this one mistake” can really mess up the survivors lives.
SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of victim impact statements in capital cases in Payne v Tennessee and found them to be admissible. I’m not aware of a ruling in any other sort of case but if they’re admissible in death penalty cases I can’t imagine they wouldn’t be under the same legal reasoning as Payne.
Oops, I linked to the dissent in Payne. Here’s the opinion.
And then taken the extreme, if the murder was actually ridding the world of a hideous element, then what?!
And that, not to get too political, is why I disagree with admitting impact statements.
Keep in mind that during the trial, the defendant’s side can portry the murder victim(s) anyway they want, and often portray them as people the world is better off without–the O.J. attorneys portrayed Nicole as a druggie, a slut, and a spouse batterer, NONE of which there was any evidence for! Long Island Shooter Colin Ferguson, working as his own attorney, portrayed his victims as a bunch of white racists who were blaming him for the shooting that the white guy who stole his guy on the subway did.
It other words "it was all the victim’s fault."Shouldn’t someone have the chance to refute this defamation after the guilty verdict.
Well first, it’s legally impossible to defame a dead person. Second, if the defendant is convicted, that in my mind stands as a pretty solid repudiation of the defense’s assertions.
I’ve never understand why defamation doesn’t apply to dead people. I can portray Mother Theresa as a drug taking whore because she is now dead?
There are still people who would give a lighter sentence if the victim was portrayed as somehow “deserving it.” Just this week in New Jersey, a man who beat his 2 month daughter to death said it was partly the child’s fault for “crying and rejecting him every time he held her.” For whatever reason, the judge gave him 28 years instead of life.
Yup. Defamation doesn’t apply to the dead because defamation damages a person by diminishing their reputation. A dead person is past the point of caring about his or her earthly reputation.
Why doesn’t it damage the surviving spouse or children though?
Exactly. Which is why they can speak in court before the sentencing.
OK, you’re talking about two different things. There’s civil defamation, which legally doesn’t exist for the dead, and there are these impact statements.