Victim impact statements -- should they be allowed?

personally, I think they add no merit to legal process and should be disallowed.

0 Replies

I could quibble with the writers leap of logic in determining the "real reason" for capital punsihment but it really doesn't matter.

The impacts to the family of a lost loved one are facts and that is what the jury is supposed to be measuring. Yes, the testimony is usually emotional but it isn't the emotion the jury is supposed to be weighing. The testimony is supposed to be to inform the jury of the impact of the loss on those left behind.

0 Replies

The article seems to imply there is something wrong with vengeance.

0 Replies

Quote:

This shift makes perfect sense if you accept that the only real justification for capital punishment is vengeance.

I think the above sentence reflects a bit of the author's bias--the claim that vengeance is the "only real justification" isn't particularly well supported. Although I personally have a problem with the death penalty, there is another justification for capital punishment, and that is justice. Vengeance arises from a sense of justice but often goes further, hence the negative "spin". Justice in itself, however, is a worthy goal. In some people's eyes, life in prison isn't all that severe of a punishment; forgetting vengeance, victim impact/emotions, etc.--when someone robs another of life, is it just to simply confine them in a cell where their room, board, and healthcare are paid by taxpayers? Is loss of freedom a just exchange for loss of life?
I believe that victim impact statements are perhaps neither good nor bad for the jury/justice system, assuming the jury is capable of distinguishing fact from emotion. However, the statements ARE needed for the victim/survivors. Regardless of which way the jury decides, an impact statement allows the victim to confront the perpetrator and publicly announce the severity of the crime. Since the rest of the court case is governed by what the judge allows, with particular attention to the rights of the accused, allowing the victims to have their say in court seems just to me.
(But, I'm a socially-inept scientist, not a lawyer Confused

)

(The last paragraph quoted by Joe summarizes my reason for opposing the death penalty--the reason is not based on justice, but mercy. As stated, capital punishment often assumes that the criminal will never change or repent of his/her ways. Given a choice, I would forbid capital punishment in order to allow the criminals this opportunity, however unlikely they are to change. But this is mercy, not justice.)

0 Replies

roger wrote:

The article seems to imply there is something wrong with vengeance.

Are you suggesting that vengeance should be the basis for capital punishment?

0 Replies

lab rat wrote:

I think the above sentence reflects a bit of the author's bias--the claim that vengeance is the "only real justification" isn't particularly well supported. Although I personally have a problem with the death penalty, there is another justification for capital punishment, and that is justice. Vengeance arises from a sense of justice but often goes further, hence the negative "spin". Justice in itself, however, is a worthy goal. In some people's eyes, life in prison isn't all that severe of a punishment; forgetting vengeance, victim impact/emotions, etc.--when someone robs another of life, is it just to simply confine them in a cell where their room, board, and healthcare are paid by taxpayers? Is loss of freedom a just exchange for loss of life?

This distinction between "justice" and "vengeance" makes no sense. "Justice" is the goal, not the means to arrive at that goal or the justification for having that goal. If "vengeance" is not "just" in itself, then it has no place in the justice system.

lab rat wrote:

I believe that victim impact statements are perhaps neither good nor bad for the jury/justice system, assuming the jury is capable of distinguishing fact from emotion. However, the statements ARE needed for the victim/survivors. Regardless of which way the jury decides, an impact statement allows the victim to confront the perpetrator and publicly announce the severity of the crime. Since the rest of the court case is governed by what the judge allows, with particular attention to the rights of the accused, allowing the victims to have their say in court seems just to me.

If victim impact statements are needed solely by the victims/survivors, then we should perhaps find a non-judicial forum in which they can deliver those statements. At the point where those statements are delivered in court during the sentencing phase of a capital trial, however, it seems clear that those statements are designed for only one thing: to convince the jury to order the execution of the convicted defendant.

lab rat wrote:

(But, I'm a socially-inept scientist, not a lawyer )

That's to your credit.