Should victims have a say in sentencing criminals?

Discussion in 'News & Debates' started by tallybee, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. tallybee

    tallybee DS '04, DD '06, DD '15

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    14,893
    Likes Received:
    1
    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 :flower:

    There are some good points made in both the article and the comments below. What do people think about this?
     
  2. Laura2919

    Laura2919 Team Twilight!!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    15,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Lightworker

    Lightworker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. marley2580

    marley2580 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Nibblenic

    Nibblenic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  6. rubixcyoob.

    rubixcyoob. Guest



    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:flow:

     
  7. Mrs Mayhem

    Mrs Mayhem Guest

    My thoughts exactly!!
     
  8. PeanutBean

    PeanutBean Mumma to Byron & Indigo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    18,004
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also think not, for all the same reasons already mentioned so I won't repeat them. :)
     
  9. morri

    morri mom to one

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,174
    Likes Received:
    158
    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.
     
  10. littlemiss83

    littlemiss83 Mum of 2

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    No because some victims families are more forgiving than others, it wouldn't be fair.
     
  11. kiwimama

    kiwimama Soon to be family of 4!

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. NuKe

    NuKe mummy to 2 gorgeous girls

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,765
    Likes Received:
    0
    no way.
     
  13. vaniilla

    vaniilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,338
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. bluebaby

    bluebaby Wife & mum to a princess

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice