I’m talking about that one where Gore is at a town hall-type meeting and he’s talking about victims’ rights. He says that victims should have the right to speak to a jury. That doesn’t make sense to me. The thought of a victim being allowed to stand up and give a narrative to the jury doesn’t sound right to me. But then again, maybe I interpreted what he said wrong…
This seems more of an MPSIMS or IMHO thread, but I’ll answer anyway…
The reason it seems wrong is because the victim may put his own spin on events, or twist the emotions of a jury in his favor. Gore’s pandering to peoples’ desire to get “revenge”… that is, if someone ever wrongs you, you’ll be able to get back at the wrongdoer by going up to the jury and say, with tears in your eyes, “He molested me by asking for a cup of sugar! You should have SEEN the look in his eyes! Oh, I’ve never been so frightened…”
Look, justice is just fair, orderly revenge. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Revenge, when agreed upon by society in the form of justice creates consequences that deter wrong-doings.
I haven’t seen the Gore thing, but I don’t see a problem with a victim addressing a court. This idea that maybe they could taint the courts decision is silly. By that logic, should the defendant be silenced as well?
no, the main point of the commercial seems to be that if you are the victim of a crime, you have specific rights that don’t apply to everybody. gore is pandering not really to people who are victims of crime, but people who FEAR being the victim of a crime.
as for a victim getting notified when release is near and being allowed to testify at the criminal’s parole board meeting, i think it’s ludicrous. the sentence has been served in a way that satisfies the written law, and which satisfies the discretionary instinct of the judge. man, that last sentence is going to hafta be put down. we had such high hopes for her, but she really went ass over teakettle towards the end.
let me rephrase. the law as agreed upon by our representatives puts people away for a certain span of time. the judge considers both the law and the specifics of the case, and comes up with a sentence. as long as the minimums of both are met, the criminal has access to a parole hearing. if the prisoner has truly shown remorse and/or reformed his/her life, then i say let them go. of course, if the person committed a crime against somebody i loved, i would say damnit to hell, that suckers going to rot. but that is emotion and not law. and to allow the victim to plead for further incarceration because release would harm them emotionally seems as to go against the whole idea of a citizens’ rights. that is, all citizens have a right to fair punishment for crimes they’ve committed, and a chance to start their life over after such punishment is meted out.
damn, my typing fingers aren’t working their usual phalangeal honey tonight. to sum up - gore’s commercial is bald-faced pandering to suburban paranoia, i shouldn’t be allowed to keep someone in jail just because i’m still hurt, and i can’t type for twiddle tonight.
If the plaintiff or the defendant want to address the court, they will do it from the stand, where they are sworn to honesty.
The victim DOES address the court, should he/she choose. But allowing them to tell a story to the jury? It’s not necessary. If the facts of an event need to be presented to the court, have your lawyer say “Tell us, in your own words, exactly what happened on the night in question… and remember, you are under oath.”
I really do not get this man. The victum can already testify… why do we need to waste time with more laws?? Also, in Florida there is a little box on the back of the arresting affidavit. If the victum wishes to be contacted when the criminal is released, the officer checks that box. The victum gets a call from the jail or prison as soon as they let the person out.
I am sure we are not the only state like this. If other states want to do that, let them make the laws for themselves. Stop wasting time and money on little things that just appeal to the simple minded crime fearing citizens! He is doing it just to get elected.
Well, duh, that’s why ANY politician does ANYTHING.
However, the worst part of this is that Gore seems to be playing with peoples’ minds. He’s inventing a false problem, and offering a solution to the false problem. I guess it works better than dealing with the real world, doesn’t it?
I can see it now… Gore’s in office, and he suddenly issues an Executive Order saying that all telephones cause Froidenal Cancer, and that they’re being confiscated for the protection of the populace… and his popularity ratings rise 5%.
I wrote Senator Kerry that I was against a victim rights constitutional ammendment. It must have ended up in the wrong pile because I got a letter back saying how much he welcomed my support for it! :rolleyes:
Yes, the ad is about a Constitutional amendment. Makes me wonder why he didn’t pursue it all these years he’s been in office, if he feels so strongly about it.
Didn’t Gore and Clinton both reject this idea a few years ago? What’s next, Gore saying he supports the NRA? Why anyone is going to vote for this goof is beyond me.
I like the overall idea of victim rights, but I dislike the idea of tinkering with the U.S. Constitution. Maybe this is an idea that should be done on the state level with state constitutions.
Short-term memories are growing frail in this country.
Furthermore… uh…
Um…
Now what was I saying?
To me, the fact that an amendment would be necessary means that these proposed “victim’s rights” would override rights already delineated in the Constitution (the rights of the accused, most likely). So we would effectively be trading one set of rights for another.
Am I understanding it correctly?
Dr. J
I haven’t seen or heard the Al Bore commercial either, but could he be referring to a “victim impact” statement to the judge or jury before sentencing? You know, where the victim or the family of the victim tells what the effects of the crime are like, the suffering it causes? I think that this is done only after the verdict is rendered. I don’t think that is a bad idea at all, but I also don’t think that it is an example of bold leadership to support it. He’s going to oppose victim’s rights? What’s the next major campaign statement? I support motherhood and apple pie? Or I invented motherhood? Or if he goes back to the alpha male attack mode - Bush is the enemy of apple pie! - he has a “risky recipie.”