Ethical Concerns of Victim Impact Statement - Term Paper Example

Victim Impact ment Introduction The victim is the most affected when a crime is committed, because they suffer at the hands of others, even if they are innocent. There are many rights of the victim and the defendant; one of the most important rights of the victim is the victim impact statement. The victim impact statement can be defined as a written or oral statement by the victim, which is included in the pre-sentence report, and is given to the judge, before he gives his sentence. The victim impact statement is basically the victim’s right to speak about what they have suffered and the consequences which they have to face after the crime (Eres & Rogers, 1999). The victim impact statement is introduced because the victim needs to be given a chance to express what they feel, because they were the ones who suffered, were threatened, beaten, had to listen to the defendant and bear their cruel attitude. A victim’s statement includes the physical, financial and psychological damages, the harm done to the victim’s family, the medical treatment which the victim has to go through and the victim’s own opinion of the appropriate sentence for the offender. Even though it sounds fair, there are ethical issues with victim impact statement and these issues would be discussed in this essay. Ethical concerns of Victim Impact Statement Sentencing a criminal is always done, keeping under consideration the utilitarian concept, which applies to the society. However, a victim statement reflects the interest of individuals and not the society. Thus, if a private party has influence over the sentencing of a criminal, then there wouldn’t be any proper procedures for establishing the guilt of the defendant, the sentence wouldn’t be fair or just. Another ethical consideration is that the victim is not objective in many instances, and the judge would face difficulty in deciding what he should or should not take into account. The ethical concerns are not only related to the defendant alone, but lawyers would then exploit the victim, based on the statement he or she has given. This would further damage the victim emotionally, as lawyers from each side would ask difficult questions to save their respective clients (Moriarty, 2003). It becomes an ethical issue for the jury, as sometimes the victim statement has such strong emotions, that the jury ignores the evidence presented to them and focus on the victim’s statement. However, according to the eight amendments, a sentence must be based on facts, rather than emotions. Criminal Justice Professionals and Public Victim Impact Statement is an ethical concern because if the judge and the jury take into account the emotions of the victim, they wouldn’t be able to objectively look at the crime and give a sentence, which would be just and fair for the defendant. According to the public opinions, victim impact statement gives voice to the victim and makes the defendant and the public understand more about what the victim went through. In public’s opinion, victim impact statements are not an ethical concern because if the justice system fails to listen to the crime victims, then they are directly in conflict with the ideology of their justice system’s foundation, which is fair, swift and equal justice and with punishments, which are aligned with the nature of the crime. Moreover, it is also a fact that the suffering which a victim goes through, doesn’t stay with the victim only and often moves into the extended family, like children or spouse. Thus, these real and measurable impacts shouldn’t be ignored, and those who want to make the justice system know how they have been affected by a crime, the justice system should give them a chance to do so (Cassell, 2009). The reason why the justice system accepts the existence of victim impact statement is because the victims were being pushed to the side, were only called in the courtroom, in case they had to testify or present evidence. This was alienation and the victim impact statement has given them a reason to participate in the trial proceedings. It is also important to note that crimes don’t happen to the State, they happen to people and many victims have a direct interest in the outcome of their case, particularly in homicide cases. However, many victims don’t exercise their right to give an oral or written impact statement, mostly because they find it hard to face the defendant; they find it extremely difficult to put their sufferings and emotions into words (Moriarty, 2003). Moreover, there was also a lack of knowledge on the victim’s part, as to what the impact statement is, how to write it, what things to include and the impact that statement would have. For the justice system, victim impact statement would become an ethical issue, if the judges don’t keep in view the law that applies to the case and instead, base their decision on the victim impact statement and the emotions expressed in the statement. The main reason why the judicial system has given this right to the victim is because; the reason for the success of the judiciary is based on how they treat the victim of a crime. It is not necessary that the victim impact statement would change the sentencing, in fact, according to a research conducted in South Australia, it was found out that 34% of the victims, who created a victim impact statement, felt that their statement didn’t change the sentencing at all and they didn’t get the result, that they were expecting. Due Process within the Justice System Due process can be defined as the state’s responsibility and a legal requirement, which states that the legal rights of an individual should be respected. In this case, the due process of the victim and the defendant needs to be protected. In the 1980s, the victim impact statements of were banned in California. After Payne v. Tennessee, victim impact statement was made admissible in cases, which didn’t include the death penalty. In the case of Booth v. Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States, took a victim impact statement for the first time (Mulholl, 1995). Booth was charged with robbery and murder of an elderly couple; he was convicted and then sentenced to death. Before the sentence was given, the prosecutor of the case read a victim impact statement, which was written by the victim’s children, son-in law and granddaughter. However, the victim impact statement was considered to be against the eighth amendment. The court stated that if a victim impact statement is allowed, then the jury or the sentencing bodies would be fully focused on the victim, instead of thinking about the defendant. The jury, however, was allowed to listen to the victim impact statement from the family, before making a decision. Justice System’s stance The Supreme Court changes its stance regarding victim impact statement, when in Payne v. Tennessee; Payne was convicted of the murder of a woman, her daughter and the attempted murder of the woman’s son. Payne asked four witnesses to testify about his character and tell the jury that he is a loving, caring and compassionate man (Mulholl, 1995). On the other hand, the prosecutor, read the victim’s impact statement, which told the jury that the death of the two family members has made the victim’s son extremely sad, and this is a heinous crime, which the son have to carry with him for the rest of his life. In this case, the Supreme Court didn’t oppose the victim impact statement presented by the prosecutor. Thus, the justice system allows the use of victim impact statement, with respect to the nature of the crime and the number of people who have been affected by this crime. Kant’s View In light of Kant’s view, ethics are about rationality and duty, as compared to the emotions. All actions are done according to some principle, that is different from each other, and keeping these principles in mind, the moral value of any action is judged (Davis, 2009). Thus, in Kant’s view, a victim impact statement is not ethical, because it based on emotion rather than objective views. These emotions have the power to influence a sentence, which would be unethical because it would be unjust for the defendant. Teleology According to the teleology concept, there are two types of finality, extrinsic finality and intrinsic finality; extrinsic finality is an action taken, for the sake of something, which has an external value, like when parents seek the happiness of their child (Davis, 2009). In this case, the victim’s family wants to seek the satisfaction of their child and that is why they put emphasis on victim impact statement. Intrinsic finality is the opposite; in the case of a daughter, who has been raped, the mother would seek for intrinsic finality, to make sure that the rapist is convicted; this would bring her internal satisfaction and she would be satisfied, for the sake of being satisfied and nothing outside of that satisfaction. Ethical Issue In my opinion, using victim impact statement in criminal cases is an ethical issue, because it doesn’t protect the rights of the defendant and even exploits the victim. During a trial and before the sentence, if the victim statement is read, then the jury is most likely to make a decision, based on the emotions of the victim. Moreover, the defence lawyer would also want to question the victim, with respect to their statement, however, this would further emotionally damage the victim as the lawyer would ask questions about how the crime happened and would try to make the victim less innocent. On the other hand, if the victim impact statement is not read in the court, then the victim would lose his or her voice and wouldn’t be able to explain what he has suffered and what would he want the sentence of the defendant to be. This is the right of the victim; the victim has the right of telling others what happened to him, so that the defendant would realize the way he has harmed the victim. The jury and the judge need to hear both sides of the jury, to give a just and fair sentence. In order to solve this issue, the judge needs to make a decision about the cases in which the victim impact statement should be used and the cases where the statement should not be admissible. There are cases where the accused has committed multiple crimes and they are also serious in nature; in such cases, law, evidence and objectivity should be of preference. There are cases in which the accused has not committed multiple or serious crimes, and this is where the victim impact statement should read, so that the jury and the judge can get a chance to hear about the victim’s side of the story. This way, the rights of the defendant wouldn’t be violated and the victim would be able to raise his or her voice. Conclusion The matter of victim impact statement is a complicated one, as there are both legal and ethical issues attached with it. There is an urgent need for legislation in this matter, which is complete and addresses cases, of every nature. Victim impact statements are allowed in courts, so that the voice of the victim is not pushed in the back and the case becomes all about the defendant. One thing which the court needs to address our research about is whether these statements have an impact on the defendant, whether his actions are influenced by the statement and if he is released on parole at some point, does he becomes a law abiding citizen or he goes back to his old ways. These are important aspects of the victim impact statement, because if there is no use of this statement and no impact, then the courts should reconsider its use in criminal cases. Lastly, victim impact statement should be a topic of consideration, because it does hold great importance. References Cassell, P. (2009). In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law, 6(611). Davis, R. (2009). Securing rights for victims (1st ed.). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Erez, E., & Rogers, L. (1999). Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes. The perspectives of legal professionals. British Journal Of Criminology, 39(2), 216--239. Moriarty, L. (2003). Controversies in victimology (1st ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub. Mulholl,. (1995). Sentencing criminals: The constitutionality of victim impact statements. Mo. L. Rev., 60, 731. Overland, M. (1984). The complete sentencing handbook (1st ed.). Los Angeles: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Roberts, T. (1992). Assessment of the Victim Impact Statement Program in British Columbia (1st ed.). Ottawa: Dept. of Justice Canada, Research and Development Directorate, Policy, Programs and Research Sector. Smith, A. (2012). Victim impact statements (1st ed.). Toronto: Carswell. Read More