Victim impact statements vs. just the facts ma'am.

[dennis in se pa]

What good do victim impact statements do in a court of law? If one person kills another, for example, how is it any better or worse if the victim had friends/relatives that are emotionally or otherwise impacted by the occurrence? To me it adds to the "theater" aspects of justice. If a victim has 20 people vs 1 person present a victim impact statement, does it matter? Should it? Is it meant to make those remaining feel better somehow? The facts are the facts. They should be pertinent to the case.

[Rinty]

Originally Posted by dennis in se pa

What good do victim impact statements do in a court of law? If one person kills another, for example, how is it any better or worse if the victim had friends/relatives that are emotionally or otherwise impacted by the occurrence? To me it adds to the "theater" aspects of justice. If a victim has 20 people vs 1 person present a victim impact statement, does it matter? Should it? Is it meant to make those remaining feel better somehow? The facts are the facts. They should be pertinent to the case.

I don't practise defence law, but I've wondered about the cost of valuable court time expended, as measured against the benefit of the catharsis for the victims.

[GH85Carrera]

Yea, killing a human in cold blood is supposed to be all the same in the eyes of the laws.

The fact that it was some pretty young mother of two attractive kids, or a rotten drunk, mean old hermit should not make a difference, but it does.

Every single time they interview some neighbor or friend of a victim the victim is described as a wonderful warm person that would give the shirt off their backs to help their fellow man. There would be a lot of shirtless people if that were true.

I have never seen the the person described as a rotten mean drunk that beat his wife and dogs.

In the end the victim statement is a mostly to let the people that cared feel a bit better and get to tell the killer how bad they feel. I understand that, and it is all they have left but memories and photos.

I don’t think we focus enough on victims of violence and how their lives are changed. Take mass shootings, for example. We gorge on details about the killer and his motives. We dwell on things like numbers—how many people were murdered—but we quickly lose interest in the survivors. I watched Fox’s documentary on the Las Vegas shooting, and was struck by how I came away with much more understanding of the magnitude of the tragedy because I listened to the stories of victims.

We ask courts and juries to mete out some pretty extreme forms of punishment. Hearing from the victims is, IMO, critical part of ensuring the punishment fits the crime, and, more importantly, that the public hears just exactly what it means, for example, for a young woman to get shot in the face.

[Tervuren]

Lets take an example of Arson.
The victim impact would surely be a factor in a court determining sentence would it not?

Victim impact can determine different criminal offenses based on the level of impact.

Also, if not recorded in the court records, what if a future governor decides to make a lot of pardons?

A good judge is often going to want this to be brought to light in the records of the court. It also can give him solid reasons to determine sentencing, either lighter or harsher.

[dennis in se pa]

My point is - if you commit a crime you commit a crime. No matter how many people are affected, that does not change the crime. theft of a particular magnitude, violence of some sort etc. I don't see a grey area here. And I usually do in most issues. The more involved the crime the more severe the sentence maybe.

[GH85Carrera]

I think the victim statements really need to be done in drunk driving wrecks. So often a drunk driver maims or kills an entire family, and they get a slap on the wrist, or just a few years in prison.

[dennis in se pa]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

I think the victim statements really need to be done in drunk driving wrecks. So often a drunk driver maims or kills an entire family, and they get a slap on the wrist, or just a few years in prison.

Yes, I am an Evangelist about this. Drink as much as you want, but don't drive! It's not your legal fees or court fees that will get you, it's knowing your whole life the damage you did.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by dennis in se pa

Yes, I am an Evangelist about this. Drink as much as you want, but don't drive! It's not your legal fees or court fees that will get you, it's knowing your whole life the damage you did.

Well said. It is so annoying to see another drunk driver kill someone or just bang them up a lot, and then the reporter says it is the drunks 8th DUI. Three DUIs and life in prison makes sense.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by dennis in se pa

My point is - if you commit a crime you commit a crime. No matter how many people are affected, that does not change the crime. theft of a particular magnitude, violence of some sort etc. I don't see a grey area here. And I usually do in most issues. The more involved the crime the more severe the sentence maybe.

This perhaps depends on why you have a justice system.

Generally, when someone is wronged, the justice system exists to enforce a righting of the wrongs. This means that the amount of wrong dealt is indeed a factor as the greater the damage the greater the wrong, and in turn the greater the actions taken need to be.

In the case of murder, the wrong cannot be made right by the murderer in terms of the taken life. However, the greater the amount of injury dealt, the greater payment that is required to be just.

[wdfifteen]

I'm not familiar with victim impact statements. Does it affect the sentence or verdict?
I can see having the ability for the victim(s) describe how the crime affected them personally to be of great value to them.

[mattdavis11]

Impact statements can be used by the prosecution, judge, jury at trial all the way through to the adjudication of the offense.

Do they affect the verdict or sentence? Sure.

The Dallas cop that murdered a young man is a prime example. Texas v. Amber Guyger. She got 10 years on a murder conviction. Eligible for parole in 5 years, and you can bet your arse the parole board will look at the impact statements, if she makes it that long in prison.

[greglepore]

Its not about sentencing. Its about letting the victim have an opportunity to speak their piece and give the perp something to reflect on.

[Gretch]

courts, even VERY old ones, were/are society's solution to fueds, vigilantiism and chaos. even kings needed to control conflict among their subjects such that they remained productive to the goals of the king and NOT distracted from these, by wasted energy on conflict.

To think they are only to met out a precisely weighted, exact, measure of justice, is to not understand the meaning of the word in the context of the human experience.

[dennis in se pa]

I can see how in a jury trial, impact statements could turn a 2 year sentence into a 10 year sentence by playing on the heart strings of the jurors. I wonder if that is right.

[DanielDudley]

You want to show that nobody wanted this to happen, and nobody had it coming.

This of course implies that some people do in fact have it coming. Some do, and that can be part of a defense. It seems to me that it goes both ways.

Is it worse if you rape and kill someone's daughter than it is if you kill someone who raped your daughter ? I would say yes, and that sometimes it is important to let people know that the person who was killed was either a scumbag or a saint. Should it influence sentencing? Perhaps it should. I would want a rapist and a killer to be put to death, or whatever the worst possible punishment was. I would want you to receive the very lightest sentence if you took the life of someone who did something heinous and you took action in response. Justice is more than just guilt or innocence. That is why we have juries.