This is an offshoot of this news story. A man, found guilty of forcing his 14yr old girl step-daughter to have oral sex with him, appealed his original sentence of three years and four months in jail, saying that the fact that the step-daughter had already had sex with men should have been a mitigating factor:
Now, before anyone accuses me of defending this guy - he is the lowest form of scum on earth for forcing his daughter of any age to have oral sex with him. And this appeal, basically saying she’s a slut, so it shouldn’t matter as much, makes him even more of a scum. We can only hope that Italian prisons have the same pecking order as US prisons when it comes to kiddie molestors.
Putting that aside - do we do this in the US? Do punishments handed out in criminal court cases in the US depend to some extent on the perceived ‘damage’ to the victim? This is a horrible case to use as an example, because sex crimes come with waaay too much other emotional baggage in the US (I think that Megan’s Law is constitutional, for example).
Using a less volatile example - should a criminal who steals $100 from a rich businessman be punished less than someone who steals from a single mother? I know we often allow mitigating circumstances related to the offender to influence the punishment (i.e, was otherwise a fine upstanding citizen, etc., or, has been a repeat offender, etc.). But should we also take into account the impact on the victim?
I think we do, to a certain extent. I know you’re not talking about sexually based crimes specifically, but the job of the defense attorney is to undermine the reliability of the accuser, and when it comes to sexually based crimes, that’s done by pointing out the accuser’s sexual history.
True - but I’m guessing that this would only be done during the stage of determining innocence or guilt, not in the punishment phase?
Think of Kobe Bryant’s case - the sexual history of the woman involved was certainly being discussed as to whether or not it indicated a pattern of behaviour that made her more or less reliable. But I don’t think anyone was suggesting that, assuming he was guilty, that she was any less of a victim because of previous sexual history.
Since one’s sexual activity has nothing to do with one’s credibility, most states, and the feds, have adopted rape shield laws making a victim’s prior sexual history inadmissible except in certain limited circumstances.
In that particular case, she most definitely was considered “less of a victim” because of her previous sexual history. But that was a very high profile case, and it was easier to paint Kobe Bryant as the victim because of who he was and the media it attracted.
Yes, but some of those circumstances include whether or not the defendant has had sex with the victim prior to the sexual assault.
Putting aside sexual issues, the hypothetical I like is the time-sensitive shooting. In 1956, two men argue in a bar and one pulls a .45 revolver, firing six bullets into the other. Before an ambulance can arrive, the victim dies. In 2006, same argument, same attack with the same weapon, but a helicopter evacuation to a trauma center saves the victim’s life. In 2056, same argument, same attack with same (now antique but still effective) weapon, but the bartender sprays the victim with cell-repairing nanites and the injuries heal almost instantly. The intent and the weapon are the same in all three cases - why is or isn’t the punshment?
well, laws (should) change with time.
going by what’s here, intent is what you’d have to punish the guy for…or at least repaying the bartender for his fun can of nano-termites…or whatever is in the can.
that seems to be what you’d go by…intent…which sounds a lot like our (american) court of law. if anything, that might help distill law into something more…condensed…more…fair…because you won’t have sympathy juries if the nano-termites heal the wounds.
The intent and the weapon are the same, but the result is different. Crimes are a combination of several things: intent, act, and result. If you had the same punishment for all three results listed above, some of those punishments would be grossly inappropriate to the crime.
If criminal A assaults victim B, don’t you think that whether or not victim B survives should be a factor?
OK, let’s say that victim B has a broken thumb. On the other hand, criminal Y assaults victim Z, and victim Z ends up with broken ribs, a broken arm, and a ruptured spleen. Should the punishment to criminal A be the same as to criminal B?
I know that in military courts, during the punishment phase of a court-martial, witnesses testify in matters of mitigation or extenuation. The detriment of a crime to the unit’s ability to perform the mission weighs heavily in the sentence. I.E. if the armor of a unit goes AWOL with the only keys to the arms room, and the unit has a mission where they must draw their weapons, this soldier has obviously injured his unit’s ability to perform that mission. He will probably get a tougher sentence adjudged then a soldier who was not that vital to the mission going AWOL.
That is not the only consideration in determining a punishment but it is a factor.