Should the victim of a crime have the right to say how the convicted person is sentenced?

Question

I believe that the victim in a crime (or the family of the victim if the victim was murdered or if the victim is a child as in child abuse cases) should have a say in how a criminal is sentenced.
Would this lead to a fairer way of sentencing if the views of the victim (or their family if the victim was murdered or if the victim was a child as in child abuse cases) were taken into consideration by the sentensing judge?

Answer 1

that is not a very good idea. The victim has a strong prejudice, and will by sentencing the person with a lot of emotion. Where as a judge or a jury will most likely be more impartial and give a fairer sentence.

Answer 2

We seem to be drifting into something called Shariah law here. In England and Wales we have English law. A person when found guilty of a crime is usually sentenced by a judge. The family or victim of a crime have no say in the sentence or punishment. It is true however, that many people in UK now feel that the victims of crime have been ignored for far too long. There is a shift in favour of the victims. You've got to move very carefully and slowly on this issue, because a considerable amount of damage could be done to our freedom. Take the case of a person now having been found not guilty of a murder, may at some future date be retried for that same murder. This is not how English law worked since the middle ages. Once a person was found not guilty, that was an end of the matter. A former Lord Chancellor, Quentin Hogg, once said in a tv interview, that during his tennure of office, he estimated about 60% of guilty people got off. I do not think much has changed. If you do not have proof of guilt, then there's not going to be a conviction.

Answer 3

Personally I think generally not, although I hate to seem to show a lack of sympathy to victims of crime.



However, in taking sentencing to be determinable by the victim, the affair assumes a character of personal vengeance, which is a lower character than when the sentence is imposed by a judge. Criminal prosecutions are usually prosecuted as the criminal having committed an offence against the whole people (or the monarch in a monarchy - traditionally the kings peace (sorry my apostrophe key is broken)). Letting the victim choose the penalty I feel, detracts from the solemn character it currently has.



Further, in an humane society it is important to try to ensure that criminals also are treated with fairness - ie that they do not get punished with more severity than their offence warrants. A victim is unlikely to have the distance necessary to be really fair.



Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, I think it would be bad for the victims. They will have to live with what they chose as the sentence. This does not help them to move on. Further, a very important thing to victims of crime is vindication - the knowledge that society as a whole recognised the wrong done to them and acted against it. I think that imposing the sentence themselves would take away from this very important element in a victims healing.

Answer 4

No, because the victim will be overly biased against the offender, and suggest punishments far beyond the realms of reason.

I agree punishments for offenders should be harsher anyway (longer prison sentences, death penalty in UK etc) but for a victim to choose or have any say in the punishment cannot happen.

People would get stupid and suggest 20 years just for breaking a window, and the whole system would be thrown into disrepute if someone who had a really bad crime done to them suggests only a few months: i.e. some people could get away with nothing for terrible crimes, and others may get overly punished for not a lot.

Also, if a victim chose offender's punishment, then victim or witness protection would go out the window, as it would be nigh on impossible to protect someone for life, if they had suggested an overly harsh punishment to someone who has a revenge-seeking personality.

Answer 5

Yes, In the United States, most States now have victims rights legislation which allows the victim & their family to make statements regarding how the crime has effected their lives and what they would like to see happen to the offender. Judges may take these statements into consideration when considering sentence. More importantly, it gives victims & their families some closure by allowing then an opportunity to be heard.



I would also add, in response to other peoples answers, that victims & their families can be amazingly fair & even lenient. I have seen victims & families request light sentences and even probation because they were more concerned about the offender getting "help" rather then serving time.

Answer 6

I have heard so many cases of where the victims suffer more than the criminal, and I think that that is what is wrong certainly with the UK criminal system. The US system is different- remember OJ? Michael Jackson? the guy who killed his pregnant wife? etc. You can, it would seem, carry out a "circus" trial in public and have open discussion, and then even if you find someone not guilty have a another trial for damages and costs and find them guilty - only the lawyers seem to get rich, like jackals at a feast!

If you consider the judges and the due procedure it seems to me that the punishment should fit the crime. The bible says an eye for an eye, and whilst we should not take that literally, it does have the essence of truth. Let me give you simple examples to make my point. I had a friend who worked in a market selling clothes from a stall. Overnight one of the other stall holders hid and during the night robbed him of all his wares. The culprit was found, told he was a naughty boy and given 100 hours of community service as punishment, whilst my friend went out of business, with no income and then had to pay back the loans that he incurred to buy the original stock for sale. You can see that the victim suffered much more than 100 hours compared to the thief. Was that justice? I dont think so.

More serious offences such as grievous bodily harm should, in my view alo be considered in such a way as the eye for an eye is met. For example, all crimes must have some sort of costing. If a person is injured through a criminal act then the criminal should, in my non-expert view, be put in a prison factory 9or an open factory if he/she can be tagged) and work to pay off all legal costs, medical bills and subsistence costs for the person so debilitated by the crime. The length of the prison term is not from the "book" but must be equal to the time it takes to right the wrong. For the natural life of the person if necessary.

What then, I hear you ask, if the person commits murder. Well in such a case (and there are many different situations for murder which may require different responses) again the eye for an eye rule should be followed. The murdered person's life had a value. If the person was a family breadwinner, for example, than the murderer in my view should contribute to the costs of maintaining the family, and as such may need to remain in prison for his/her natural life to support the family/spouse. Of course, if a person has no dependents the eye for an eye principle still holds- a life lost for a life lost (in jail).

This is not an academic exercise. We see many people who are upset by the fact that those who commit offences are let off and treated leniently. This is not accceptable.

The punishment should not just fit the crime it should pay retribution to those whose lives are damaged by it.

Answer 7

The problem I foresee in letting the victim of a crime have the most weight in sentencing is emotional distress. The range of emotions a victim, or a victim's family might feel could cloud their judgment terribly.



One victim may beyond rage and want something so severe, and another may be grieving with thoughts of forgiveness wishing something too lenient. Laws, and punishment for breaking the laws, generally come about based on consensus, which generally is thought to be more fair and level minded. Saves both victim and criminal from decisions made unwisely.

Answer 8

Wow!!! Now there is an idea I really like. That is an excellent suggestion but then here in America we have to take into consideration the rights of them criminal above all else. I mean just because someone rapes a 3-year old and hacks her into little pieces or murders a whole family doesn't mean that they don't deserve the best......screw that. You are right, let the victim or the remaining family decide what is just. I bow to your wisdom. What are you doing next November? Ever think of seeking political office? :)

Answer 9

I don't think it would be fairer. The victims family would have their judgement impaired by emotions. I believe that the decision should be left to an impartial third party, that way it ensures that the appropriate punishment is carried out.



However, I do not believe that any leniency should be shown to criminals found guilty "beyond a resonable doubt" of commiting such atrocious crimes such as the ones you described; Especially when these crimes are commited against children. Criminals should be punished to the full extent of the law...and then some,

Answer 10

Without a doubt.... I think the victim or the victims family has every right to say how the victim should be sentenced. Victims and their families have to live with a life altering experience that was brought upon them by a criminal and they have every right to speak their mind regarding the outcome of the sentence.

Answer 11

I don't think this is a very good idea. It smells a little of revenge and retribution. For example, "you did this to me and my familly, now I'm going to punish you by...." This is the reason we have a society of laws. The laws dictate what is illegal and how perpetrators should be punished. Many judges listen to the family's feelings and statements, and he might be nudged in one direction or the other in passing down a sentence. But the victims should not be the ones to pass judgement.

Answer 12

No, absolutely not. We have a court system here and the judges are well educated and experienced in the law. They are also impartial. The victims or their families are always allowed their day in court through the prosecution. The prosecution representating the victims seek penalties as well as compensations through the judge and it is up to the judge as well as the jury to make the final decision base on their understanding of the law. Otherwise, we may revive the lynch mob mentality.

Answer 13

Well you have the right to give a victim statement in front of the judge and the convicted person, the judge is supposed to take that into consideration, but he or she still has sentencing guidelines that they must follow when sending a person to jail.

Answer 14

No. I agree that sentences for the crimes that you have listed ought to be more severe, much more severe, but the basis of our justice system is that judges and courts are impartial. Introducing a party with a vested interest to the sentencing process would result in revenge rather than justice.

Answer 15

That is the main basis behind a trial, to be decided by an impartial group of people or person.



A victim is far from impartial and would not be able to give a fair and reasonable judgement.

Answer 16

Someone once said that it is the mark off how civilised a nation is in the way it treats those who break the law sorry I cannot quote them but revenge and punishment - causing pain - cannot be a way to make the world a safer place

Answer 17

No. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law applies equally to all. This is how the Founders formulated America-- so that lords and barons and earls would not receive special treatment before the law.

Answer 18

yes, because the way the court system is it basically does nothing more than piss them off at the victim, so when they get out of jail, or off probation, they seem to want revenge against the person who told on them. its a sticky deal, and it needs changed.

Answer 19

Yes and they should show the criminal the same mercy he showed his victim

Answer 20

As long as it's practical. There are so many people who would wish something too unpractical to someone though.. so in a sense, yes.. but for the most part, no.. I don't know think so.

Answer 21

No. It would be cwholly unfair. The victims decision would be based on anger. Senrtencing shoul be based on judicical issues not emotive ones.

Answer 22

if the victim had a say in punishment i think most would call for a death sentence and so i dont think it could ever happen anyway.

Answer 23

I don't think it would be practical. I suppose the injured party might be able to sway a Judge's verdict, but his is the last word.

Answer 24

It is a difficult one. I believe no. Sometimes anger can make a person unable to make these decisions, so it is important to have someone trained in the law to do this on our behalf. As a famous politician once said, "An eye for an eye will make us all blind."

Answer 25

There is a trend in many states to allow just that........Specifically, with regard to violent crimes. Check with your local AUSA Office, U.S. District Court.

Answer 26

Eye for an eye is what I say. Handcuff him/her and put them in a room with the family.

Answer 27

Seems to make sense on first reading of the idea.

Answer 28

they do its called a victim impact statement

Answer 29

NO. They should not.

The law must remain dispassionate otherwise you have inequality in sentencing. Should sentencing in general be harsher? YES.

Answer 30

That would be too biased a decision.

Answer 31

A WRITTEN STATEMENT MAYBE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.