Should victims have a say in sentencing criminals?

[tallybee]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12277696

I find this a really interesting question. Having stumbled across this article I thought it would be interesting to hear opinions on here

There are some good points made in both the article and the comments below. What do people think about this?

 

[Laura2919]

Although I think sometimes judge are relaxed when they sentence certain criminals I dont think it would be right if victims had a say.

A weak form of involvement would have a judge listen to a statement from victims, but ensure the judge alone does the sentencing. < Taken from the article.

That I think would be fine but anything more than that wouldnt. If your a victim of a crime you are going to want them punished but what would you do for them to sentenced. I think it should be down to a judge and a judge alone.

 

[Lightworker]

I think the essence of a justice system is that it is based fundamentally on the principle of impartiality. Once you invite victims, who are no doubt feeling anger, vengeance etc into any process, you are effectively removing the element of impartiality. So generally, I would say no. Saying that, following the genocide in Rwanda, families of the dead were invited to speak in the courts to accused and there was some incidences of what I can only call miraculous forgiveness. Humans can suprise you.

 

[marley2580]

No, because it would easily lead to further victim intimidation. Imagine it was a child sex abuse case and it was the granddad that was found guilty, the pressure on the 'victim' to ask for a lenient sentence could be immense.

 

[Nibblenic]

No its really not a fair or just way of doing things unfortuanly.

There are many consideration when punisheing people and a victim can not see that clearly

 

[rubixcyoob.]

No the victim should not.
It will turn our judicial system from something impartial into something for retribution.

ETA: it also goes against the European Convention of Human Rights, which the UK follows and therefore cannot be done

 

[Mrs Mayhem]

I think the essence of a justice system is that it is based fundamentally on the principle of impartiality. Once you invite victims, who are no doubt feeling anger, vengeance etc into any process, you are effectively removing the element of impartiality. So generally, I would say no. Saying that, following the genocide in Rwanda, families of the dead were invited to speak in the courts to accused and there was some incidences of what I can only call miraculous forgiveness. Humans can suprise you.

My thoughts exactly!!

 

[PeanutBean]

I also think not, for all the same reasons already mentioned so I won't repeat them.

 

[morri]

No.

There is a good reason why judges or lawyers that are personally infatuated or similar with a offender aren't allowed to do their jobs. The meaning of a jusdge is that they can give a unbiased just decision based on what he has hears. There would be too much bias if anybody of the victims had a say.

 

[littlemiss83]

No because some victims families are more forgiving than others, it wouldn't be fair.

 

[kiwimama]

Although the justice system is way too lenient imo, I don't think it's right to get victims having a say in sentences is right. Way too much emotional involvement for it to be in anyway impartial and neutral.

 

[NuKe]

no way.

 

[vaniilla]

my view has always been an eye for an eye and the world goes blind, victims have a biased view of the case and might think that the person deserves the severest punishment they can get, criminal or not everyone is equal in front of the law, no person should be above the law, victims included, judgment is hard enough to pass while trying to be impartial let alone from a victims point of view.

 

[bluebaby]

If the case goes to trial then the court will get a flavour of the vitctim's life and impact that the 'ancident' has had through their evidence. The prosecutor is also there to give forward any information to the court that the victim wishes to portray. The judge is the master of the law and only they know what is the correct punishment for the crime, the victims are not normally qualified to make that educational decision and will tend to lead with emotion rather than what is suitable under the legislation.