Your day in court

[John Galt]

Government are proposing that the families of murder victims should be allow to address the court before sentencing http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...427106,00.html . Can't quite make up my mind whether this is a good thing - what do you lot reckon?

[OwlHoot]

Government are proposing that the families of murder victims should be allow to address the court before sentencing http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...427106,00.html . Can't quite make up my mind whether this is a good thing - what do you lot reckon?

It's a bad thing, a load of sentimental tosh - Courts should be accountable only to the state, i.e. all of us collectively as represented by the Crown in Parliament (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous).

[The Lone Gunman]

I dont like the idea.

The consequences of such a thing are fraught with dangerous or unpredictable possibilities:

Chances of launching an appeal due to adverse influence of family.
Will make the murder of tramps and other people with no families less of an offence etc.
.............may hink of others later.

Why should the sentence be based upon what has been left behind.

I think it is possibly a good idea to show the defendant the damage they have done after sentence, but this could have similar consequences to what I said above.

[xoggoth]

Agree with Owl. Sentences should be decided dispassionately on consequences, intent, likelihood of recurrence and previous form.

Families make an emotional judgement based on their own feelings. How often in death by dangerous driving cases do we hear "Ten years is not enough for the man who killed our little boy" etc. But it must be relevant that the man in question is a generally careful driver who made a rare error in judgement.

This sounds like the sort of crap that one gets in Islamic law. It has no place in a secular Western society.

[AtW]

Load of bollox by NL designed to show they "care". If its not relevant (ie witness statement) to the process it should not be in. IMO Judges might have to tell the jury to discount all they said.

[WageSlave]

Have to agree with everything said above. As a victim (direct or indirect) I would obviously want to make the bastard pay dearly for their crime, but the criminal justice system must be fair, balanced, reasoned and logical (fat chance of that!).

[ASB]

It's probably a bad thing. But it's also surely a complete irrelevance ?

The chance to speak is pre-sentence. This implies post-conviction surely?

There is only one possible sentence for murder anyway. That is life.

So, all we are looking at is the bleating of the poor victim to a judge. Hoping they might sway the minimum tariff - of itself extremely unlikely.

Surely the only thing this serves to achieve is to let the victim get it off their chest in a public manner in court. Highly patronising to the victim.

[AtW]

Surely the only thing this serves to achieve is to let the victim get it off their chest in a public manner in court. Highly patronising to the victim.

No no no, this serves as giving relatives of victims chance to sway opinion of the jury to convict the suspect(s). Which is why I think its wrong because guilty/not guilty decisions should be made based on known facts rather than emotions. There is no place for emotions in the justice system.

[planetit]

AtW, read this bit again. Very slooooooowly

"The chance to speak is pre-sentence. This implies post-conviction"

[AtW]

"The chance to speak is pre-sentence. This implies post-conviction"

eh, okay, sorry read too fast without due attention, I am going back to under the stone I came from

p.s. its not always life for manslaughter