Constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman unveils proposals to allow the families of murder victims to tell the killer's trial how they are suffering. The scheme, which has been inspired by a similar system in the United States, will give families the opportunity to speak out before sentence is passed. "What we are proposing is that after the conviction, but before the sentence, they should have an opportunity to say something about how the offence has affected their lives," Harman told the BBC. But a Labour Party election pledge to give rape victims their own barrister in court appears to be absent from the plans.
The Guardian has some comments on this . Such a procedure exists in America. There is an interesting article about this sort of thing which, while relating to tribal affairs amongst Native Americans, explains the concept quite well.
Harman’s proposal is a dangerous step. It is mixing the politics of the gladiatorial arena with administration of justice. Individuals’ reactions to death vary immensely and have no place in a court of law. I was much impressed by the way the family of the black teenager victim of the axe murder conducted themselves. A while back we had the parents of the little girl who disappeared from a cornfield. There was no doubt as to the effects of their loss but they obviously held their grief for private moments. There have been other public appearances where victims’ relatives have displayed great emotion. Different people handle death differently. Their attitude may vary over time. There can be no doubt that these reactions could affect sentence even in the highest tribunal. More importantly, they would lay the ground to suggestion that a killer had received a greater sentence due to the display of families in court. Coming after sentence, there would be no opportunity for rebuttal to anything they said. Taking an extreme case such as Shipman, the serial murderer doctor. It would be impossible not to be influenced by a veritable march past of loved ones.
The loss of a loved one is not quantified by any violence associated with their death. We have cases pending regarding the right to life of very young children where medical opinion is that they are in a persistent vegetative state and life support should be terminated – something that the parents oppose. Where may this couple demonstrate their loss?
The idea may have been deemed a potential vote winner at the time the Manifesto was written. It ‘seems’ right. One has only to think back to the loss of Diana to realise how universal is suffering and pain to those who might never be involved in any shape or form in a murder trial. The laying of wreaths, teddy bears and other supposed memorabilia from – by and large – those unconnected with a victim is now so widespread and intensive that it has been deemed a road traffic hazard. The axe murder victim guy I mention above drew over 3,500 church mourners. There were more outside the cathedral. Do we really believe that all of these actually knew the lad?
It is the mixing of this sort of emotion with the respect for facts in a due process that is wrong. For myself, in the dreadful event that I might be involved in such a procedure, I would decline. I fail to see the point. That is not to say that I would not see the point of finding the killer in a dark alleyway. Maybe that is why my personality finds the proposal to be so wrong and, indeed, dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment