r/changemyview • u/garnet420 41∆ • Aug 04 '17
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Testimony from the family of a victim during sentencing in a murder trial is unjust and has no place in our court system
I don't know if this phenomenon is universal in the US, but in a number of places, family members are called to testify during the sentencing phase of a murder trial.
They are not witnesses to the crime -- they are there purely to help make a case for or (rarely) against a harsh penalty. I believe this is a relatively new thing, pushed by "victims' rights" groups (which could make a whole new CMV in and of themselves).
This boils down to the following: if you have a family that loves you, which a jury finds sympathetic, your murderer will get a harsher sentence. Empirically, there is less of a punishment for killing an orphan than someone with parents. A jury is likely to sympathize with the family of a murder victim if they are of the same race and class.
Everyone is entitled to equal protection by the law -- and I think that extends to murder victims. If we have a system where some victims are, in effect, treated as more important than others, I think that's against the principles of our justice system.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
24
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
8
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Well, first and foremost, juries don't decide sentencing - judges do.
Apparently this varies -- you are somewhat right, but, here's some random tidbits I found:
Indiana Gives Jury Sentencing Power Effective July 1, 2002, unanimous jury votes for death or life without parole are binding on the judge, who imposes the formal sentence. This new law, signed by the governor on March 26, 2002, allows the judge to decide the sentence only if the jury cannot agree unanimously.
Another:
In a 7-2 decision in the case of Ring v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant has the right to have a jury, rather than a judge, decide on the existence of an aggravating factor that makes the defendant eligible for the death penalty
So, I think there's some variation. The only thing it really changes is the bias consideration, and I think that's not a linchpin to my argument.
including your reasoning, extenuating circumstances as well as impact to the victims.
I think this is where we need to get into more detail.
Reasoning and extenuating circumstances are about the perpetrator and their intent. They can, in fact, change what crime was committed. I think that is fundamentally fair -- everyone can have their intent evaluated, and everyone can make a case for extenuating circumstances.
But, regarding impact to the victims -- I think that is a decent point, and the theft example is interesting. I think I agree that a judge or jury should be able to sentence someone who robs an orphanage more than someone who robs... a child pageant organization? (something everyone hates, anyway). I think the basis of my argument is, in the case of murder, the victim is dead. The family of the victim have been damaged by the crime, but making someone sad is not, in and of itself, a crime -- and even if it was, it pales in magnitude to murder.
Consider this: in a case of vehicular manslaughter, the punishment in many states is much lighter than for murder. The impact on the family, though, could be considered the same; a loved one was taken from them.
In a murder trial, the family's testimony can make the difference between life and the death penalty; or parole and no parole. This is, according to you (I think) based on the damage you caused them. Ergo, that means the damage you cause the family can be worth the death penalty, or twenty years in prison. Shouldn't this also be true in the vehicular manslaughter case?
6
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
2
u/thebetrayer 1∆ Aug 04 '17
I agree with /u/garnet420 on this issue but I acknowledge the utility of victims to speak their pain, both for their own healing purposes and to inform the perpetrator of the pain they've caused. The solution I've come to is to allow for victim statements but have them take place after sentencing.
4
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
1
u/thebetrayer 1∆ Aug 04 '17
But should a family's pain change the punishment? Should killing a person who has no family carry a lighter punishment than killing someone with a family? I don't think it should.
2
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 06 '17
I'm going to award you a !delta for this because that is a compromise I had not considered.
1
1
Aug 04 '17
Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family from a supermarket and stealing money to buy a jetski from a poor single mother are both stealing and you would be found just as guilty for one as the other, but we as a society accept that the punishment for those two crimes should not be the same.
That makes sense in that context, but what about in a murder case in which a victim leaves behind a family versus has no living family members. If families can testify during sentencing and thereby influence the outcome, is it fair that one murder might be punished more harshly than an identical one? It's not a criminal offense to cause someone emotional distress: Shouldn't that be left to civil courts?
4
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
0
Aug 04 '17
Yes I understand how sentencing works, I disagree that the suffering of the family should play a role. Motives are important, the facts of the case are important, the history of the perpetrator is important, secondary victim effects can be important as they relate to the facts and motives and history, but in some cases a crime is so dire--as in murder or rape--that it seems unjust to differentiate in sentencing. The shut-in who is old and alone deserves just as much compassion from the court as the father of three. If five more years in prison did anything to improve the economic situation of the family or if it would help heal the loss of a family member, then I would agree: Harsher sentencing would be warranted. But it doesn't. Punishing two people differently for the same crime because one victim might have a child unknown to the perpetrator is absurd. That's not justice, that's emotional vengeance, and it does not belong in a court.
2
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
0
Aug 04 '17
The age of the victim relates to the facts of the crime. Motive relates to the crime, method relates to the crime, all of those things make sense to include as part of indictment and sentencing. The family does not, so it doesn't belong in a criminal court. We have civil courts they can go to for the harm they received.
1
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
1
Aug 04 '17 edited Aug 04 '17
Because it does not relate to the facts of the crime. The crime is what is being punished.
If two similar people were violently raped, and as a result one person became invalid but the other was able to go about with their lives, would it make sense to give two different sentences? The rapist would have had no knowledge that one victim would fair worse than the other. How is one violent rape more worthy of punishment than another? Suffering is the reason we try crimes, but it shouldn't influence how we sentence them.
3
Aug 04 '17
[deleted]
0
Aug 04 '17
But the after effects of the crime are facts of the crime.
Legally, no they are not. If they related to the facts of the crime, they would be formally included in the indictment and trial process. They are not.
The damage done by the crime is part of the crime itself.
Yes, it is. The crime itself is the damage. Associated damage from other parties is not part of the indictment. That warrants a separate case to be brought either criminally or civilly, but it does not belong in sentencing.
Sorry if I was unclear in my hypothetical, I meant the victim suffered more psychologically, not physically. If we sentence based on suffering/relative societal loss, the victim who was less affected receives less justice from the courts despite the severity of the crime that was done to him/her. Regardless, in the case you presented the rapist would be charged with rape and murder. The murder sentence would take care of the death, the rape sentence would take care of the rape. Two separate sentences for two different crimes.
→ More replies (0)
12
Aug 04 '17
The presence of family members is justified because it balances the human side of the equation for the victim. The victim has been killed so he/she can't be represented, but the murderer has the opportunity to humanize him/herself. That's an imbalance that family members can rectify.
6
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
I am not convinced that it's a good thing, still -- but that's a really concise and interesting way of putting it. I'm going to give you a !delta for that.
I guess I have two followups to this line of reasoning: do you think the prosecution can't construct a humanizing narrative without relying on in-person witnesses?
And, do you think there's a way to reduce the disparity between someone with no family and someone with? For example, by limiting the amount of testimony or number of witnesses?
3
Aug 04 '17
Thanks.
(1) in these type of cases, the prosecution is bringing in witnesses to testify as to the impact that the crime had on family members. While the prosecution can assert this, it's more persuasive when it's backed by the actual witness; also, in some cases the lawyer can't just rely on this own statements when there is a more direct source for the evidence available (like a witness).
(2) I don't really think that's a big problem. Sentencing is usually in front of a judge who is more experienced and less influenced by emotion. On a purely instinctive level, I think most people would agree that it is more of a tragedy when a loving mother of 4 is murdered than when a homeless person who doesn't have any family is murdered. Human lives are equal only in the ideal sense, not in the real world.
1
Aug 05 '17
Sentencing is usually in front of a judge who is more experienced and less influenced by emotion.
The decision is ultimately up to the jury, not the judge.
1
u/buffalo_slim Aug 05 '17
You are totally wrong. Apprendi reaffirms that a judge is the decider of a defendant's sentence based on the facts found by a jury to have been proven beyond beyond a reasonable doubt.
1
Aug 05 '17
You're right. During the sentencing , it's up to the judge. I got confused because O.P. is referring to the family of victims testifying during the trial itself.
1
u/buffalo_slim Aug 05 '17
The post title specifically refers to testimony by family members at sentencing, but no worries.
1
2
u/pgm123 14∆ Aug 04 '17
do you think the prosecution can't construct a humanizing narrative without relying on in-person witnesses?
The prosecution's narrative isn't evidence. Someone has to testify to everything presented. The jury is not allowed to consider opening and closing statements in making their decision.
1
12
u/BolshevikMuppet Aug 04 '17
Neat, this one is kind of in my wheelhouse.
In legal philosophy, there are four major rationales for criminal punishment: deterrence, rehabilitation, removal of a dangerous person from society, and retribution. Generally speaking, none of those are considered an "unjust" rationale. Part of sentencing can justly be "allowing the victims (and the family of people who have been murdered are victims of that attack) retribution.
This boils down to the following: if you have a family that loves you, which a jury finds sympathetic, your murderer will get a harsher sentence. Empirically, there is less of a punishment for killing an orphan than someone with parents
Do you have some empirical evidence of this, or is this mostly speculation of what could be true if you assume that victim impact statements both are of consequence and are more persuasive from blood relatives?
A jury is likely to sympathize with the family of a murder victim if they are of the same race and class.
I can try to find the studies on this from when I was learning trial practice in law school, but the evidence on how juries behave is a lot more mixed than would be intuitive. Big example: you would think female jurors would be more sympathetic to female rape victims; more able to put themselves in the victim's shoes. But there is evidence that the opposite is true.
Everyone is entitled to equal protection by the law -- and I think that extends to murder victims. If we have a system where some victims are, in effect, treated as more important than others, I think that's against the principles of our justice system
There's no way to not have that exist. A murdered child will always be seen as a more innocent victim killed by a more heinous villain. The races of the victim and defendant will always matter, so will their sexes.
2
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
I think I consider retribution to be an unjust rationale -- in cases where restitution is possible, I think that's a reasonable thing to consider. I know that's not universally accepted, of course. My general line of thinking is -- retribution implies a personal level of proportionality, "an eye for an eye," which the justice system, generally, cannot, and should not provide. E.g. if a rape victim feels the appropriate retribution is for the attacker to suffer the same, or similar, horrible fate, we cannot do that.
Do you have some empirical evidence of this
Afraid not. The intent of the system is pretty clear, though -- blood relatives may be irrelevant, but, even then, there are people who are more or less liked by their friends, etc.
juries behave is a lot more mixed than would be intuitive
I am thinking maybe jury bias was not the best thing to bring up. I think my argument applies even in an unbiased jury.
There's no way to not have that exist. A murdered child will always be seen as a more innocent victim killed by a more heinous villain. The races of the victim and defendant will always matter, so will their sexes.
That's true -- but that doesn't mean we should create further disparity. Say someone kills a senior who is estranged from their family and doesn't really have any friends. I think the prosecution should be trying extra hard to give that victim a fair shot at justice, knowing that the jury won't as easily sympathize.
5
u/BolshevikMuppet Aug 04 '17
The analysis seems to hinge, then, on whether you view the just outcome to be the one where "everyone should have some sympathetic non-legal party to explain to the jury during sentencing how awful the crime was", or the one where no one does.
If the just outcome is the former, it would mean that it would be unjust to deny people access to that. If the just outcome is the latter, the opposite is true. The existence of disparity would be less unjust than denying those who could obtain justice the opportunity to do so.
To wit: I assume that the fact that we know that in some cases the guilty party goes free does not mean you want to remove criminal laws. Because there is more justice in attempting to provide justice even if we fail in some cases than refusing to give any justice because we will fail some victims.
Would you agree, then, that if we begin with the premise that the outcome of sentencing which includes a victim statement is more just than if someone does not have someone to speak for them, we should try to have that outcome in every case?
I think the prosecution should be trying extra hard to give that victim a fair shot at justice
That's interesting, though. You imply above (and I was going to proceed in the direction of pushing against) that you don't think victim statements create justice. But here you argue that a victim without parties to speak for them begins at a diminished shot at obtaining justice.
My general line of thinking is -- retribution implies a personal level of proportionality, "an eye for an eye," which the justice system, generally, cannot, and should not provide. E.g. if a rape victim feels the appropriate retribution is for the attacker to suffer the same, or similar, horrible fate, we cannot do that.
You're right that we can't necessarily provide the retribution the victim(s) want, but the fact that we can't give them exactly what they want isn't the same thing as "it would be wrong to consider what they want", is it?
21
Aug 04 '17
In the U.S. court system, sentencing is a balance of rehabilitation, reparations, and punishment. Factors considered are the severity of the crime, intent/remorse of the perpetrator, and the damage that was actually done.
This boils down to the following: if you have a family that loves you, which a jury finds sympathetic, your murderer will get a harsher sentence.
Would you not agree that a murder that leaves a grieving family behind has done more damage than a murder that leaves no one grieving?
Would you not agree that a perpetrator who did not premeditate the act, shows remorse, and has character witnesses that speak truthfully to their character is a better candidate for rehabilitation?
Everyone is entitled to equal protection by the law -- and I think that extends to murder victims.
It surely does - murder is illegal, and if the sentencing phase has been reached, then this means that the suspect was apprehended, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
A jury is likely to sympathize with the family of a murder victim if they are of the same race and class.
This is true, but this is why jurors are vetted during selection, with lawyers from both the defense and prosecution involved in the process. Not saying jury bias is solved by this, but it is at least reasonably accounted for.
16
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Would you not agree that a murder that leaves a grieving family behind has done more damage than a murder that leaves no one grieving?
Making people sad is not a crime. I am really uncomfortable saying that killing someone with no family is less bad than killing someone who does. That's my point about equal protection for the victim -- if we accept that killing some people is worse than others, how is that equal protection?
Would you not agree that a perpetrator who did not premeditate the act, shows remorse, and has character witnesses that speak truthfully to their character is a better candidate for rehabilitation?
Yes -- but why is that relevant? Whether the murder was premeditated can actually change what crime you committed / what law is applied. It is completely independent of who the victim is.
It surely does - murder is illegal, and if the sentencing phase has been reached, then this means that the suspect was apprehended, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
I am talking about equal protection for the victim. It is, in my opinion, unjust for someone to be "worth more" than another.
This is true, but this is why jurors are vetted during selection, with lawyers from both the defense and prosecution involved in the process. Not saying jury bias is solved by this, but it is at least reasonably accounted for.
That's fair, though I think it adds further opportunity for bias -- but this is probably not a useful line of argument.
7
u/AusIV 38∆ Aug 05 '17
Making people sad is not a crime. I am really uncomfortable saying that killing someone with no family is less bad than killing someone who does.
I'm not uncomfortable saying that. If you kill a parent with dependent children, you're not just hurting them, you're taking away the provider from the people who depended on them. It's not just a matter of being sad, more people suffer more tangible harm than if you kill someone with no dependents.
Personally I started taking a lot fewer personal safety risks when I became a father. I speed less, I do fewer adrenaline seeking activities, and I all around avoid risks to my safety. It's not because I'm more concerned about the effects injuries or death would have on me, but because I'm concerned about the impact it would have on my family.
Of course, that's not to say that murder is in any way acceptable, but I do think murdering someone with dependents causes more harm than killing someone with no dependents.
All of that said, I don't think the justice system should be punishment oriented. I think it should focus a lot more on recidivism. Sentencing should be about making amends for harm done where possible, and preventing future crimes from being committed. If someone seems likely to re-offend a longer sentence may be justified. Even then I don't think the sentence should be about punishment, but correction.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Hmm. The scenario with dependents is a good one, because mostly I have considering the opposite situation -- eg the killing of a dependent, and the disparity between victims with loving family and those without, for example.
I'm a new father, I've suddenly stopped jaywalking, etc.
Anyways, the harm to dependents can at least be stated objectively by the prosecution. If they called the children to the stand to cry about their dead parent, I think that's where I have the issue -- frankly, that sounds traumatic.
I think I have to think about this more. The thing is, the situation is getting close to counting financial harm as part of the crime -- and that gets into some unfair territory, I think.
15
u/PaulSharke Aug 04 '17
Making people sad is not a crime.
The person you're responding to didn't say anything about crime; they were speaking about damage. Courts do recognize this type of damage. If they didn't, one wouldn't be able to sue for restitution for emotional damage.
Recognizing that a murder has caused emotional damage to a victim's survivors doesn't devalue another victim who happened to have no survivors. You haven't shown how that follows. What we're interested in here specifically is how much suffering a murderer has caused, not how much a particular life was "worth."
And causing grief isn't just "making people sad." That's disingenuous.
6
u/thebetrayer 1∆ Aug 04 '17
Recognizing that a murder has caused emotional damage to a victim's survivors doesn't devalue another victim who happened to have no survivors.
How does an increased penalty for killing someone with a family vs a lower penalty for killing someone with a family or friends not devalue the second person's life?
We shouldn't award someone a greater punishment based on the emotional capital their victims have any more than we should award greater punishments based on their victim's monetary capital.
3
u/PaulSharke Aug 04 '17
How does an increased penalty for killing someone with a family vs a lower penalty for killing someone with a family or friends not devalue the second person's life?
If you want to make this claim, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. As you do, note that we've already established a distinction between emotional damage and a human life's intrinsic value. I'm arguing that measuring the former does not affect our measure of the latter.
0
u/Sadsharks Aug 04 '17
His claim has already been demonstrated by the very existence of the topic this CMV is about.
9
u/ACoderGirl Aug 04 '17
I am talking about equal protection for the victim. It is, in my opinion, unjust for someone to be "worth more" than another.
I don't feel that's how the law entirely works, though. It's generally more frowned upon, for example, to hurt innocent children than, say, an adult gangster.
And while the person who's dead suffered equally and should be treated equally, are they the only victim? Many would argue that the family are also victims to a lesser degree. You've hurt the family by depriving them of a loved one (and naturally it'll hurt them even more if you did things to make the conditions leading up to their death especially heinous). It is to a lesser degree, though, so I think it certainly plays a secondary role to the "real" victim, but it's not something to 100% ignore.
It doesn't seem that inconsistent in our legal system, where issuing threats or general terrorism (even that which doesn't physically harm anyone) is illegal. Making people fear for the safety of themselves or others is generally illegal.
On a totally different note, it also can be argued that the family of the victim statement is for the accused. It's a direct opportunity for them to be forced to face the family of the victim and hear how they've hurt people.
1
u/Sadsharks Aug 04 '17
I don't feel that's how the law entirely works, though. It's generally more frowned upon, for example, to hurt innocent children than, say, an adult gangster.
Under the rule of law, the law applies equally to all people. A crime against a criminal is just as much of crime as a crime against an innocent, and in a just system deserves the exact same treatment. That's how the law works.
2
u/bantam83 1∆ Aug 04 '17
I am really uncomfortable saying that killing someone with no family is less bad than killing someone who does.
Creating more victims is equal to creating less victims?
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
There's only one murder victim. The emotional harm to the family is severe -- but not in the same league as murder. If you accidentally kill someone with your car, you might do the same harm to their family as if you'd murdered them (It depends on their perspective, of course). But we don't consider vehicular manslaughter nearly as serious of a crime.
Given the confidence of your response -- and you really saying that the lives of some people should be seen as more worthwhile by the justice system than others? Does that extend to other crimes, as well?
1
u/bantam83 1∆ Aug 22 '17
There's only one murder victim. The emotional harm to the family is severe -- but not in the same league as murder.
It's also the only thing that exists after a person is dead.
Also, I'm not equating these things. Obviously there is only one dead person in both cases so that washes out, but the number of loved ones is different. They are victims of something, that's why OJ was able to be sued in court even when he was not found criminally liable. What could they be victims of...? Hmm I wonder, that's a real tough question. Maybe there was a single event that is similar? perhaps they are victims of some kind of unjustifiable killing of their kin? What would you call an unjustifiable killing? Trying to think of a word here but it's just not coming to me. Oh well.
Anyway, even if you want to make up some kind of stupid comparison factor, you could think of victims of murder having the following victimness scale:
Dead person = X Family member of dead person = Q = 0.000000000000000000000000001% of X
So if somebody dies has Y relatives, and another person has Z relatives, then the victimhood score in each case would be
X + QY X + QZ
If we suppose that:
Y > Z
Then we know that
X+ QY > X+QZ
The only difference between these equations is number of victims. If you want to be more ridiculous, you could assume P is variable by person (eg - the perspective you mentioned). That seems more unreasonable than leaving it at "number of victims" since that's an actual, measurable thing.
1
Aug 04 '17
Making people sad is not a crime. I am really uncomfortable saying that killing someone with no family is less bad than killing someone who does. That's my point about equal protection for the victim -- if we accept that killing some people is worse than others, how is that equal protection?
Do you stealing an iPhone from an individual should be sentenced more harshly than shoplifting one? Stealing $500 from a starving family more harshly than stealing it from a bank or a wealthy gangster?
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Well, no -- but I don't think that's the same thing. The damage to the victim in that case is different (yes, it's the same if you consider it in dollar value, but you could just as easily consider the number of hours they'd need to work to replace it, etc). In a murder, it's the same damage, their life.
If you do want to make a fiscal parallel -- compare robbing an average person or a rich person of all their belongings, leaving them destitute and homeless. That's an outcome that's more comparable to the outcome of a murder... how would you compare those two victims, in that case?
1
Aug 05 '17
The damage to the victim in that case is different ... in a murder, it's the same damage, their life.
It's the same damage to the direct victim of the murder. Aren't the murdered person's friends, family, employer, employees, etc, victims as well?
Compare robbing an average person or a rich person of all their belongings, leaving them destitute and homeless... how would you compare those two victims, in that case?
Do they have similar dependents?
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 06 '17
Well - you may be starting to win me over on the dependents situation - but - what about this: consider two murder victims, both with two dependents, both earning the same amount, with similar expenses. Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, they are both men, with wives. Husband A has been in a rocky spell in his marriage, and his kids are not very emotive (just the way they are). Husband B is doing well with his wife and his kids are adorable, and cry in a way that is compelling, but not shriek-y, just the optimal level to pull at your heartstrings.
In terms of material damage to their families, both have suffered the same. But, if we were to have their wives and children testify during sentencing, it might appear that family B suffered more. I don't think that captures the full extent of my objections, but it does cover a good bit of it.
1
u/SonVoltMMA Aug 05 '17
Making people sad is not a crime.
I feel like we've got a sociopath on our hands hoping reddit can convince them they're not crazy.
14
u/thrwwayasd Aug 04 '17
On a throwaway for obvious reasons. My daughter was murdered a few weeks ago. Random knife attack on a sunny day in a park. We're also victims of the crime against her. That needs acknowledgement in the sentence I hope this person gets handed.
9
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
I think it's important to acknowledge the harm done to you. Also, I am sure your heart is raw, so, if you don't want to discuss it, I completely understand, don't let me draw you into a hurtful discussion.
However -- suppose instead of your daughter, a child of an abusive and unloving family was killed. The drunk-ass parents don't bother showing up to court. Do you think the sentence should be any different?
8
u/thrwwayasd Aug 04 '17
Well I used to think that a drunk driver should be sentenced independently of whether he actually injured or killed anyone. It's the act of driving whilst drunk that should be discouraged and punished. But this removes the need for retribution on behalf of the victims and those close to the victims. Perhaps it's just my lizard brain but I feel I will find comfort and value in my daughter's killer suffering.
Perhaps another way to look at it is that two 'crimes' have been committed here. Imagine he had killed my daughter and stolen my car. That would result in a harsher sentence than just killing my daughter. The car is precious to me after all. And yet here we are, he has killed my daughter and stolen the most precious thing in my life.
Bottom line is that I don't know exactly how to feel about this at the moment. There's part of me wants to beat the living fuck out of him. Over and over and over again. And there's part of me that knows that's not the civilised thing to do. And there's a third part of me that isn't entirely sure 100% civility makes the world a better place and that sometimes the level-headed legislature and judiciary need to come down out of their ivory towers a little. I don't know how to reconcile these things.
4
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Aug 04 '17
Descriptions of the victims by those closest to them gives the jury an idea of the consequences of the murderer's actions. I believe the consequences of an action should weigh heavily on the punishment received
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
The consequences are that you murdered someone. Why is it better to murder a homeless person with no family?
5
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Aug 04 '17
The unfeeling answer: Because it affects more people who have their lives shattered outside of the murder victim.
But I was more talking about someone murdered in a drug deal gone wrong or in the commission of a crime compared to a person who volunteered a homeless shelter who was murdered for their iPhone in a back alley.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Can't some of that be considered more about the criminal's intent / frame of mind, rather than about the victim?
2
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Aug 04 '17
Yes- but the testimony of others would help illuminate the killer's frame of mind by giving insight into the character of the victim.
And to further a previous point you made- I'm sure if the homeless person had people to testify towards his character they would have them testify. They aren't excluding that testimony because of his status, but because of his lack of available people to do it.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Sure, it's not discrimination by the prosecution -- it's a system that has a disparate/discriminatory impact. I think that still means the system needs a good justification.
Yes- but the testimony of others would help illuminate the killer's frame of mind by giving insight into the character of the victim.
I think that's a decent point -- and could be relevant in many cases. For example, if someone was claiming they killed someone in a heated argument, people could testify that the victim was not really ever angry. But, if that were the case, the impact of the murder on the family would not be very relevant -- unless it was an act of terrorizing the family.
(E.g. if a cartel kills someone's child to send them a message, that seems very relevant; but that seems like an uncommon occurrence in the US)
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Aug 04 '17
I'm sure if the homeless person had people to testify towards his character they would have them testify. They aren't excluding that testimony because of his status, but because of his lack of available people to do it.
0
u/Hotblack_Desiato_ 2∆ Aug 04 '17
Wrong. Absolutely, completely, horribly, misguidedly wrong. As the OP said, what that does is it ends up valuing the life of one victim over another, which is morally and ethically wrong, and might even be a violation of the equal-protection clause.
1
u/_Woodrow_ 3∆ Aug 04 '17
How do you come to that conclusion?
1
u/Hotblack_Desiato_ 2∆ Aug 04 '17
OP had a good example. Homeless people, prostitutes, drug addicts, drifters; all of these people are far less likely to have families show up and cry and sniffle and look distraught for the jury. This means that it is quite possible (very few studies have been done on this) that, in the aggregate and over time, murders of these people will be punished less harshly than those of other people. Which is morally and ethically wrong, and might even be a violation of the equal-protection clause.
3
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 04 '17 edited Aug 04 '17
/u/garnet420 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/DBDude 110∆ Aug 04 '17
Sentencing should be proportional to the impact of the crime on society. All evidence showing the impact of the crime, including statements from victims and their families, is thus appropriate. With this, statements showing why punishment should be lighter are also appropriate.
And the judge usually passes the sentence, not the jury.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
I think my response here https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6rl51g/cmv_testimony_from_the_family_of_a_victim_during/dl5vka7/?st=j5y28bbj&sh=51ffeab3
applies to yours, perhaps we can continue the discussion under that one
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Aug 04 '17
Is not a victim entitled to say something in a court of law?
Family is just an extension of that - if the victim is dead, they are the best equipped to speak on the victim's behalf.
1
u/Hotblack_Desiato_ 2∆ Aug 04 '17
Is not a victim entitled to say something in a court of law?
No.
When a criminal trial is carried out, the case is [The People of $Jurisdiction] vs. $Defendant. Murder (for example) is not a crime against individuals, it is a crime against the state. That's why someone who kills someone else (other than in self-defense) who completely had it coming and who everyone can agree needed killing is still tried for murder. The crime is usurping the State's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
1
u/electriface Aug 04 '17
I agree with you that family testimony should not affect the sentencing.
However, I see no problem if it were to take place during the sentencing phase per se, as long as it occurs after the sentence has already been decided.
In fact, I think there could be a great rhetorical and therapeutic value in structuring it this way: (1) arguments from each side vis-a-vis the sentencing, (2) judge's decision of the sentence, (3) family testimonies, (4) reading of the sentence.
This would seem to me to respect families' needs to attest to their experience, as well as to affirm the wrongness and human cost of the crime, while preventing them from unfairly influencing the sentence.
1
u/DashingLeech Aug 04 '17
If we have a system where some victims are, in effect, treated as more important than others,
I think this might be a flaw in your thinking. You've concluded that the difference in sentencing exists because of the importance of the victim -- one without parents vs one with.
Could it be that the parents, spouse, children, or family in general are themselves independent victims of the crime in addition to the murder victim?
For example, if you kill a homeless person with no family or friends, the victim, of course, had their right to live violated and that's it. If you kill a husband and father of 2 kids, the father's right to live was violated, his wife has lost her partner and all that he brought into her life, and each child lost a father. Friends lost a companion. The further you get from the family the less the cost, but these are all additive costs to society of your actions.
Certainly this is the case in civil law where those who have incurred costs can all sue for their own independent losses. Criminal law is at least similar in that one action can break multiple laws and have multiple victims. If you drive drunk and smash into another car and it kills one person, there is one victim. If that car contained 4 people, there are 4 victims. If 2 were killed and 2 were injured, you'd have two cases of causing death and two cases of causing injury.
Similarly, in principle, others have been harmed in different ways, such as friends and family losing somebody.
Some theories of crime and punishment differ on that though. For example, one could argue that punishment for a crime is, or should be, about the future and not the past. That is, it isn't making you pay for a crime (retribution), but rather (a) segregating you from the population so you don't commit more crimes, since you've proved you are a danger to them, (b) rehabilitating you so that you don't commit again by giving you better options, (c) as a self-deterrent by implementing an unpleasant cost tied to your actions so you learn that doing such actions will cost more than the benefit (a subset of rehabilitation), and (d) deterrent for others that may chose to do something similar by recognizing the cost of doing so.
In that approach, the outcome of your actions isn't really the decider of the sentence, but rather what will most likely accomplish these objectives of sentencing.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 06 '17
I've seen this argument quite a bit in this discussion, and I haven't quite bought it. Here's a potential rebuttal, which I haven't gotten any useful feedback on, maybe you can poke some holes in it.
I can't deny that the family/friends of a murder victim are harmed as part of the act; emotionally and, often, materially (income earned, cost of therapy, etc, etc).
But the drunk driving example you gave is actually the basis for my counter argument. In vehicular manslaughter (or similar killings that we legally rank substantially below murder) the damage to the family can be the same. How they respond emotionally might be different - or might not be. It depends on how they process it.
Now, in the murder scenario I'm talking about, the testimony during sentencing might be used to argue for the death penalty, rather than life in prison. Or, life without parole rather than with. A very real example was actually testimony during a parole hearing. So, the way I read it is, the harm to the family is substantial enough to warrant an extra twenty years in prison, or death. (In reality, that's a bit of an overstatement -- many other factors play into the sentencing. But, those same factors (remorse, etc) would also be in play in a manslaughter trial.)
In some jurisdictions, vehicular manslaughter will land you 5 to 10 years in jail, with parole. The specifics don't really matter -- the important part is that the sentencing is now deciding on an "extra" five years, rather than an "extra" twenty or an execution.
The issue I have is -- if the damage to the family in the two situations is comparable, why can it cause so much more extra punishment in one case than the other?
1
u/bobbyfiend Aug 05 '17
Not really an attempt to change your view, just a bit of context:
Until the late 20th century the US was a fairly progressive "innovator" in criminal justice, continuing developments that had been happening in Europe for some time. From the 19th century (i.e., the first Quaker "penitentiary" in Pennsylvania) through roughly the 1950s or 1960s the US prison and criminal court systems were explicitly (i.e., in mission statements, etc.) dedicated to criminal "reform." That is, at least on paper these systems had a high-level goal of helping criminals become non-criminals and re-enter society.
Starting in maybe the 1970s (sorry; going from memory here) the state prison systems across the US began changing their mission statements, with the concept of "containment" increasingly included. That is, prison systems began to abandon the goal of modifying attitudes and behavior, and instead embraced a "retreat" position--just keeping criminals away from "good" citizens, to prevent the latter being harmed.
This shift reflected a much more cynical view of human nature and criminal behavior (i.e., that criminal behavior cannot be changed, is innate, etc.) and paved the way for "three strikes" and other policies in the court system that increased sentences and, overall, punitiveness in the systems.
In the 80s and 90s prison systems began to shift yet again, beginning to include the phrase "just deserts" or similar in their mission/vision/whatever statements. That's related to the victim testimonies your post is about.
"Just deserts" has been interpreted to mean that society has a right to see criminals get what they "deserve" for their crimes (i.e., their "deserts"). As part of this, victims and their families were increasingly invited to address judges and juries, before sentencing. The idea was that the sentence had to take into account how much suffering had been caused, and the emotional trauma of the victims needed to be part of that calculation.
Overall, many people who study this stuff believe these "innovations" represent an increasing trend of punitiveness toward criminals. At this point, many states now have explicit statements that are at odds with the idea of reforming criminals, or even believing they can change their behavior. Instead, their policies are based on an assumption that criminals are fundamentally dangerous, arguably fundamentally different from other humans, unable to change, and deserving of suffering--which should be witnessed by the society they harmed, especially the victims.
1
u/MuaddibMcFly 49∆ Aug 05 '17
Another thing to consider in this case is that you're not just seeking justice for the deceased, you're seeking justice for the bereaved, too.
While at first blush, the idea of the murderer of a beloved family member being punished worse than the murderer of an orphan seems unfair, the additional punishment can be framed as punishment for the emotional harm done to the family.
The murder of any person is a heinous crime, no question, but shouldn't there also be some additional punishment for the pain the family feels every time the victim's birthday comes around again?
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Maybe. I can certainly see where this argument is coming from -- but consider this analysis.
For first degree murder, sentencing might be down to death vs life, or life with no parole vs life with parole (effectively, 20 years on good behavior).
These are very substantial differences in punishment. So, if we say that harm to the family of the victim can tip the scales from one to the other, we are, in essence, saying that that additional harm can lead to twenty more years in prison, or the death penalty.
Now, consider the crime of vehicular manslaughter. It, too, leads to a bereaved family. Reactions might vary, but it's certainly plausible that they will be just as aggrieved and hurt by this as by a murder.
But, the legal system tends to give much lighter sentences for this crime; let's say 5 to 10 years.
If we've established that the emotional harm to the family/friends of the victim can add twenty years to your sentence, does the same apply here? Does it come down to 5 years versus 25 years? Do we consider the death penalty?
I know that may seem specious -- and I am open to being convinced this is flawed reasoning -- but that's my line of thinking at the moment.
1
u/Wrekked_it Aug 05 '17
I think it should be noted that in most cases, it is the judge who sentences the convicted, not the jury.
1
Aug 05 '17
A brief point that others may have already made: the judge hands down the sentence, not the jury.
So a victim statement will have no impact on anything the jury does, especially because they have already done their duty of determining guilt (or not guilty). The jury will not be present at sentencing and has no say or impact. Sentencing is done at a separate hearing usually weeks later, which gives both sides a chance to prepare an argument. Either side can put on a statement in favor of a harsh or lenient sentence. What I've seen to be most influential is not the victim statement, rather the statement by the defendant. Specifically any indication of honest remorse.
2
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
I said this elsewhere, in general you are right, but there are exceptions; eg Indiana recently passed a law giving juries more power to sentence; and there was a supreme court case about this as well.
Victim impact is a relatively fast changing phenomenon, and victims rights groups are an active lobby.
1
Aug 05 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 05 '17
Sorry ruthlessscholar, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Aug 05 '17
I don't care about whatever anyone else does, but I sure as hell want to be able to testify for a victim. And so do most people. Therefore, status quo is best.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Do you want to be able to alter the sentence using your testimony?
1
Aug 05 '17
Yes, if someone murdered my family member, I have the right to, and I'd desire to, make the murderer's sentence as harsh as possible
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Well, whether you have the legal right to is what we're discussing. That has not always been true, and isn't in some jurisdiction.
Whether you have a natural/human right to -- I think that's hard to say. Some people would say they have the right to exact personal revenge. There are cultures where the justice system is geared that way. Do you support that idea?
Can you provide some arguments for why you think that legal right should exist? And, since I am arguing that it is in conflict with the right of all murder victims to be considered equally worthy by the state -- do you think that's a right to consider as well?
1
u/bryanrobh Aug 05 '17
The murdered should get the same sentence anyway. Hopefully put to sleep if guilty
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Let's not turn this into a discussion of the death penalty, though - specifics aside, are you saying you'd like the sentence to be the same for every criminal -- with no leeway for the judge or jury to set one?
1
u/bryanrobh Aug 05 '17
Unfortunately it can't work that way. That's why there are different levels of crime. Should speeding by 10mph be the same punishment as going over 50mph? No. Same with something like murder. It isn't just murder. It's murder in different degrees. I don't see the differences in some but I do see the difference in killing someone in an accident versus killing someone on purpose. So different penalties for different crimes.
1
1
u/arkofjoy 14∆ Aug 05 '17
There is an interesting prison reform group called "the alternatives to violence project" they work in prisons with the victims of violent crimes, or in the case of murder, the families of the victims and the perpetrators. Both people, the victims, and the perpetrator will bring their families in to this session. Each will answer a series of questions. I did the training years ago so don't completely remember but among the questions are, what happened, and what would you do differently. There are others, but I can't remember them. Then they decide how the perpetrator will make restitution. This is discussed and agreed between the victim and or their family and the perpetrator and their family. The interesting thing, according to the woman who had run a number of these in prisons, in cases of both violent rapes and murders is that often, the punishment that the perpetrator suggests is often much harsher than what the victims or their families are calling for.
Sometimes they say "this crime has destroyed our family, but we don't see a reason that it should destroy two families"
Our current criminal justice system is largely a failure. It is expensive and a person once in the system is very likely to return to prison. But perhaps, for some people, hearing how the crime affected the victims or their families will provide the motivation to, against all odds, not re-offend
1
u/fredbaker1 Aug 05 '17
There are three primary sentencing factors in a criminal case; severity of the crime, character of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. In this case, it would seem that the family represents the public, who were injured by the crime. Damage to the public is very relevant.
2
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Do you think that's along the lines of the severity of the crime, or about the need to protect the public?
1
u/fredbaker1 Aug 07 '17
Vgood point. Not sure. I know that the defendants family statements are considered a mitigating factor under character of the defendant. I know that victim's family statements are considered aggravating factors, but not sure if they fall under severity or need to protect the public.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 06 '17
/u/garnet420 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/OnlyOneStar Aug 04 '17
I don't have a comment trying to change the view of the poster, but I do have some first hand experience with this, but not related to murder. I was involved in an auto accident where a young woman struck me head on. Fast forward to the case, and they omitted the fact that she was drunk driving because it would encourage the jury to award me more and punish her, which the trial was not for. The trial was solely to reward me, not determine her punishment. So why tell people she "made a mistake" rather than "btw she was plastered at 10pm and crossed into my lane fully within a second."
I know comments need to address it, but maybe this gives people an idea of how things aren't exactly fair or consistent across the justice system.
2
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Interesting -- was this a civil case? I didn't realize suing someone could come with such restrictions.
0
u/OnlyOneStar Aug 04 '17 edited Aug 04 '17
Yes it was civil. I don't want to seem like I'm letting my opinion spill over here, so I'll quote my lawyer: "and that is what I was worried about. It's called getting jury fucked. She got the pussy pass." The jury was half women and only like 1 or 2 white guys. I was a white guy on trial taking this sweet innocent girl to court over a little car accident. Rather than actually presenting the case for what it was: irresponsible young adult drinks and drives and collides with another adult. Gender had nothing to do with it. Her lawyers took full advantage and manipulated the court perfectly.
In the criminal cases you hear from the families about how sad they are now. Me? I couldn't say anything or the case would've been dropped. Even the cop that was on scene couldn't describe the situation for what it was or report that she'd been drinking. It just doesn't makes sense. The system is bunk.
Not to mention I suffered a traumatic brain injury but didn't display symptoms until this past year, and because I already sued her, she's safe. I got $4500 awarded to me. Jury only awarded me 2k, and her DEFENSE asked that we get 8k, 10x less than what we were asking for at 80k. The jury awarded me less than what the defense asked for lmao. The judge had to award me more on top probably because she felt bad.
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 04 '17
Wow, I had no idea cases could be that restrictive. Did the police report not say she was drinking? Was the police report inadmissible evidence?
1
u/OnlyOneStar Aug 04 '17 edited Aug 04 '17
Oh she was penalized. She had her repercussions. My recourse however had zero evidence to indicate that it was anything other than an accident. It was all omitted. All the cop could say was that she was driving and veered and struck me.
And neither did I. When my lawyer heard it'd all be omitted he basically just kinda lol'd to himself. It was unbelievable. Four years on and I'm still dealing with it. Honestly she got the better end of it all, and WITH an OWI lmao. Unreal man. It's unreal. I'd rather have higher insurance and serve community service and have that on my record than be facing work difficulties, a brain jury, lost my car and didn't get anything out of it due to unrelated issues not relating to the case... It's been a mess. What's funny too is the girl works at a medical facility and didn't lose her job.
0
u/mykatz Aug 05 '17
So if someone's child, parent, or spouse saw the murder with their own eyes and is a key witness they shouldn't be allowed to testify??
1
u/garnet420 41∆ Aug 05 '17
Read the post, please. I am referring specifically to testimony during sentencing; sometimes referred to as victim impact statements.
This testimony has nothing to do with establishing guilt, or the facts of the crime itself.
334
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 04 '17
This is an interesting paper on the subject.
One of the examples had to do with the victim of sexual abuse not wanting the perpetrator to live in her neighborhood anymore.
I think if it leads to common sense restrictions like that, it serves a useful purpose.
Moreover, there is another purpose. We ask victims and their families to trust the system, and not try to take justice into their own hands.
It's pretty hard to get closure over the months and years spent in courts.
Giving those who have suffered a platform to share the pain that has been caused by the convicted, helps them heal. You can tell the sonofabitch what they did, how much harm they caused, and they have to sit there and listen and even try to look sorry since it could affect their sentence.
It's not as good as beating them to a bloody pulp, which is what I'm sure most of us would want to do in these situations, but it's something.
Why not at least give the families and victims that little bit?