I’m watching the Jodi Arias penalty phase and the victim’s brother is crying and pleading (as is understandable) about how devastated he is about his brother’s death.
But, why does that matter? Say the victim was an only child, dead parents, and a remote family with no substantial connection. Does that mean that the death penalty should be less applicable? (And while many don’t believe in the DP, we live in a society that has it, and if we have it, it should be applied equally) Should someone who kills a loner be punished less harshly than someone who kills a man with 10 brothers and sisters?
Basically, it’s because someone should speak for the victims of the crime. The criminal gets a chance to speak to the court, and the victim or a representative should have an equal chance.
I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with victim impact statements, or whatever they’re called in a given jurisdiction.
Especially in a death penalty case. Should the state really be influenced by such statements? Is the murder of someone who has few relatives be penalized less severely than someone with many relatives and friends? And if the state (judge, jury) shouldn’t be influenced by them, why have them?
Because no matter what we say about the utilitarian basis for our system of criminal justice, there is a significant - I would say predominant - degree of retribution built in. By and large, people believe in deserts, not in deterrence or rehabilitation.
Assuming that’s true, why does the suffering of the victim’s family, if any, contribute to the punishment? Let’s say I am a cold-blooded killer and pick out a random person to shoot in the head. I’m deserving of a severe punishment.
Should it enhance my penalty if the person I picked at random happened to be a great guy and has a loving family who will miss him? Should my penalty be lesser if he had no family or was generally an asshole in life?
My thoughts and actions were the same either way. Why does justice and/or retribution have to do with how I am treated? Does society value the guy with a family who loves him more than the single career guy?
I’m wondering how her ability to paint butterflies (why aren’t they called “flutterbys” anyway?) is supposed to cancel out the 27 stab wounds, gun shots, near decapitation, and leaving him lying there to rot? Her mitigation statement is going to be interesting.
The prosecutor’s job is to present the evidence that a person broke the law. But a victim impact statement is to remind people of why we have laws.
The victim of a murder won’t be present at the trial. So they can’t speak up for themselves. This makes it easy for the defense to not only present evidence showing the defendant didn’t commit the crime but also to play on the jury’s emotions by describing how much the defendant has suffered in the past and would suffer in the future if convicted and sent to prison. So a victim impact statement addresses this and reminds the jury that there was another person who also suffered but couldn’t appear at the trial.
I really do understand the arguments against victim impact statements and some of them are very reasonable, but in fact we allow the defendant to share their story and all, and I do believe in giving the victim or their loved ones SOME say. It’s kind of a throwback from when victims were considered THE harmed party rather than the state. But since we still give the defendant a chance to tell their sob story, while I don’t favor the victim or their family having the final say, I’m glad we give them something. We can’t take the victims out of it completely. That’s just not human nature. And a victim’s loved ones *are *also victims.
On the other hand, yes, it is tragic for those who don’t actually have any loved ones, or at least any convincing loved ones, to tell their story. There really is no perfect solution. But I believe the best answer is somewhere in between the victim/victim’s family having NO say, or having ALL the say.
What’s really unjust is victim impact statements from people who are not, technically, victims.
My wife’s nephew was accused of (among other stupid stuff) threatening two ex-girlfriends. The prosecution dropped all charges relating to the two girls because their statements were weak and contradictory (they were lying).
Ultimately he pled to a single charge entirely unrelated to anything that happened to the girls.
The judge then invited the mothers of each girl to give victim’s impact statements. They took the stand and tearfully recounted all the horrible things the prosecution had decided did not actually happen and had dropped from the case, and the judge, visibly moved, gave him a substantially more severe sentence than the prosecution had asked for in the plea deal.
Complete travesty. (Note also that the victim’s impact statements were not subject to cross-examination, introducing “evidence” after he’d pled that he was unable to defend himself against.)
I also don’t like victim impact statements. On the other hand if I was Supreme Ruler Of The World I would disallow most mitigating arguments defendents use to “get off easy”. Just as I don’t believe it should matter if the victim was a pillar of the community or an obnoxious asshole, I also do not believe it should matter if the defendent had a perfect childhood or was beaten every time he looked at his parents cross-eyed. I am a great believer in cause and effect - if you do X, Y will happen. The only mitigating arguments I would allow would have to be directly related to why X was done (e.g. self-defense).
My father was murdered. I chose not to give any statements, but dad’s twin brother did. We were consulted on a plea agreement, which we opted to go with as the numbers were fair and it would save the drama and trauma of a full-blown trial (plus consulting us was more a courtesy than anything else), so in this case any statements wouldn’t impact verdict or sentencing. What is did allow was for my father’s murderer to be directly addressed, in public, by the victim’s family. So good or bad, there is at least that.
I don’t like the idea that someone whose family member has been killed has to go up and do some acting performance where they express their pain publicly, especially when the killer is there and may well be taking pleasure in it. Will a killer get a lighter sentence if the family is stoic rather than crying hysterically in public?
These are vitally important in the Arias case because Arias and her lawyers accused the victim of being a pedophile (no other supporting evidence but JA word) and of being abusive (again, no other evidence but JA word).
Just why the hell should the victims family have to ne exposed to that and not be given a chance to rebut? To prevent a further crime against the victim?
I have some concerns about these things, too. But if the criminal justice system is going to produce justice it does have to maintain a connection to real people. Otherwise trials and sentencing are just sort of an academic exercise for lawyers and judges.
I’m pretty sure they don’t have to do anything. And most people aren’t serial killing sociopaths.
I disagree. Victim impact statements are new. They came into being during my life. They exist for entirely political reasons, a response by politicians to angry and grieving families. If anything, they muddy the waters during sentencing, IMO.
Yeah…the false claims that Travis Alexander was a pedophile shouldnt have been rebutted. Yeah, juries shouldnt be reminded victims were human after being trashed by defense attorneys.