PDA

View Full Version : Should victims' families have a say in court?



Bluelotus
09-01-2005, 03:51 PM
Should family and friends of the victims be allowed to express their distress/thoughts/opinions in court before the sentencing?


A government consultation paper will propose bereaved relatives address the judge after the conviction but before the sentencing of a killer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4202618.stm


Under the new plans, bereaved families in england and Wales would be able to address the court before sentencing - either in person or through a victim's advocate.


Ministers from the Department for Constitutional Affairs say it will help families like Ms Pakeraah and it could help to fight crime.

But the charity Victim Support has reservations. The group said, as a general rule, victims should not have to think about the sentencing process.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4198258.stm


what do you think and why?


blue.

katteri
09-01-2005, 04:48 PM
I would say no.........

Though Judge is said to be a neutral person who abides the law and sentences the criminal based upon the evidences.


There are chances that the decision to allow such briefing would alter the decision, it is playing with emotions..............

'' There is no room for emotions in place like court''

What media is doing it for the families of vicitims, is pouring oil on the fire..

The families of the victims needs time and consolement, not provocating or disturbing their thoughts.

Bluelotus
09-01-2005, 06:14 PM
I absolutely agree with you anna. Courts should be a place where justice is served without having all the excess baggage that these emotional outbursts would bring.
And should it really matter whether or not the victim was a bad person or a good person, whether or not he would be missed by many or no-one at all? shouldn't everyone be the same in the eye of the law (magistrates, juries and judges)?

I think that the whole thing is a waste of time and money....the latter which could be spent am sure on an extra nurse or bed :doh:


blue.

vasan
09-01-2005, 06:24 PM
Courts should be a place where justice is served without having all the excess baggage that these emotional outbursts would bring.

What is justice? Giving some regulated punishments to criminals?

Is healing the emotional scars of individuals not a form of justice?


shouldn't everyone be the same in the eye of the law (magistrates, juries and judges)?

Absolutely. Give the victims a chance to speak too. They SHOULD be treated same in the eye of the law.


I think that the whole thing is a waste of time and money

So might one argue about the endless procedures of Law. But we have them - the reason being that justice and compensation might be served. Why then withholding the emotional compensation of affected families?


There is no room for emotions in place like court''

Who says so? This is not physics class. Imagine some one committing a crime against me or my family - Why shouldn't my emotions count for nothing when the perpertator is being punished... :evil:

What sort of justice are talking about, when the rights of criminals are preserved, where as the victims are discarded? The family are victims too - after all they are ones who would spend time in nourishing and healing and what not..

v-

katteri
09-01-2005, 07:30 PM
Vasan,

As Per IPC no one can show their outburst, when the hearing is is progress (proceeding)....

What is a outburst? is is a subjective question and ultimately it is the judge who decides it??

I presume same applies to English law, as IPC is a derivative of the english law.

dinesh
09-01-2005, 08:07 PM
I fail to see thge point.....


What is justice? Giving some regulated punishments to criminals?

Is healing the emotional scars of individuals not a form of justice?
Is punishing a criminal more going to help people heal their emotional scars? If the verdict includes a financial penalty then it might be understandable, but already judges take into account the "woth of life" which determines the potential earnings of a victim and the dependency on his earnings while delivering financial penalties, hence it doesn't make much sense at all.

Shy
09-02-2005, 12:18 AM
My Vote is YES

It's only when sentencing, meaning the defendant is already a criminal in the eyes of the law. Now, lost is lost, atleast victim families shud be given an oppurtunity to express their anger, sorrow whatever they feel directed to that person.

so no emotional stuff baising the judge.. Just because they cry and talk, no judge will change his views. so I wont agree to that.

Shy

anainar
09-02-2005, 03:39 AM
I thought the closing arguments by the advocate is a clear expression of the sufferings of the victims. He has to bring those sufferings to the forefront and that by itself should be reason enough not to have victims tell their sufferings in an open court. Indian judicial system is a bit different. But in the US, the jury selection is something that takes a lot of time. That is essentially to remove the bias content. In Indian system, the judge being dissociated from the victims, it is fairly taken for granted.

I personally see no point in letting the victims vent out their anguish in open court. Instead of healing, it might remain for ever. There are better ways to heal the emotional scars than picking them again in public.

Cheers