![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Victim Impact Evidence Rule
Nov. 10th, 2008 05:29 pmI'm going to give an unpopular opinion here.
I am opposed to the very idea of "hate crimes".
I believe in justice and the safety and rights of the citizens of this country, but I believe that undue emotional impact is used as leverage in a variety of ways in our justice system.
One of these ways is the idea of "hate crimes". I am opposed to classifying something as a "hate crime" because I do not believe there is any difference between a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his shirt and a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his skin. The severity of the crime is what should be considered and I am appalled to think that another man's death is more important than mine simply because of his minority status; that his abuser/murderer will get a more severe punishment because his death is more symbolic than mine is. I do understand the historical importance of bringing previously-un-cared-about crimes to a level playing field, but I think these kinds of solutions are temporary, at best, and at worst, only serve to further segregate the categories of people whose status they are designed to raise.
I also think it's a form of thought police. A "hate crime" punishes people more severely for their thoughts, their motivation, than for their actions. I do think there should be a distinction between "accidents" and "intentional", but why a person intended to kill or maim is, I believe, irrelevant in the justice system. It's the killing/maiming that is important, and putting a stop to it.
Understanding why might be interesting from a sociological point of view, perhaps to better target preventative measures against crime. But not in the punishment stage, not after the fact. It should be wrong to kill because it's wrong to kill. Not more wrong to kill this guy than that guy.
Related to this thought is a news article I just read regarding the "Victim Impact Evidence" rule.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-na-death11-2008nov11,0,7336659.story
What happens is that familes of a victim are allowed to show video to a jury that details the victim's life; to humanize him, and to make him more "real" for the jury. This, I believe, has a significant impact on the jury's decision-making progress.
I do not believe it should be allowed for the family to tell the jury how important the victim was. The victim was human. Period. What more needs to be said? Showing video of the victim as a child, seeing the parents cry, hearing that the victim was an honor student, or a doctor, or somebody's mommy implies that, if the victim were not as popular, didn't have any family, didn't have any major contributions to society, than he would be less important.
What if the victim had no family to make these sentimental videos? Should the jury then consider that he won't be missed, so the murderer didn't really do anything bad? As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tacit points out in his recent entry, people make their decisions and their beliefs based on their emotions. That's just what people do. The US Justice system is supposed to be "blind", supposed to be evidence-based and as free from human emotions as possible.
Of course, we know that's not always true in practice, but that's the way it's supposed to work. And I believe that any video or testimony that does not add to the facts of the case, that only serves to more humanize the victim is actively harming the judicial system of blind justice and evidence-based trials. These videos are specifically designed to tug at the jurors' heartstrings, and to unfavorably bias the jury against the defendant.
They also, in my opinion, imply the assumption that not all humans are equal. The defendant is not an equal human to the victim (remember, the trial is to decide if the defendant is guilty or not, so he may not actually be the murderer or attacker), and the victim is deserving of more empathy than other people because this victim is so loved, has achieved so much, and has the potential to impact the world to such a degree.
The guilty should be determined guilty because he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not because the jury has an emotional response and a personal bias against some category of people the guilty falls into or because it's such a shame that this particular victim was a victim. The punishment should be determined based on the severity of the crime, not by how worthy the victim is to receive justice. A first-degree murder is a first-degree murder is a first-degree murder. I am appalled that one murder is worse than another based upon the importance of the victim. The victim is human, and that should be enough importance.
I am opposed to the very idea of "hate crimes".
I believe in justice and the safety and rights of the citizens of this country, but I believe that undue emotional impact is used as leverage in a variety of ways in our justice system.
One of these ways is the idea of "hate crimes". I am opposed to classifying something as a "hate crime" because I do not believe there is any difference between a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his shirt and a man who drags another man behind his car until he dies because he doesn't like the color of his skin. The severity of the crime is what should be considered and I am appalled to think that another man's death is more important than mine simply because of his minority status; that his abuser/murderer will get a more severe punishment because his death is more symbolic than mine is. I do understand the historical importance of bringing previously-un-cared-about crimes to a level playing field, but I think these kinds of solutions are temporary, at best, and at worst, only serve to further segregate the categories of people whose status they are designed to raise.
I also think it's a form of thought police. A "hate crime" punishes people more severely for their thoughts, their motivation, than for their actions. I do think there should be a distinction between "accidents" and "intentional", but why a person intended to kill or maim is, I believe, irrelevant in the justice system. It's the killing/maiming that is important, and putting a stop to it.
Understanding why might be interesting from a sociological point of view, perhaps to better target preventative measures against crime. But not in the punishment stage, not after the fact. It should be wrong to kill because it's wrong to kill. Not more wrong to kill this guy than that guy.
Related to this thought is a news article I just read regarding the "Victim Impact Evidence" rule.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-na-death11-2008nov11,0,7336659.story
What happens is that familes of a victim are allowed to show video to a jury that details the victim's life; to humanize him, and to make him more "real" for the jury. This, I believe, has a significant impact on the jury's decision-making progress.
I do not believe it should be allowed for the family to tell the jury how important the victim was. The victim was human. Period. What more needs to be said? Showing video of the victim as a child, seeing the parents cry, hearing that the victim was an honor student, or a doctor, or somebody's mommy implies that, if the victim were not as popular, didn't have any family, didn't have any major contributions to society, than he would be less important.
What if the victim had no family to make these sentimental videos? Should the jury then consider that he won't be missed, so the murderer didn't really do anything bad? As
tacit points out in his recent entry, people make their decisions and their beliefs based on their emotions. That's just what people do. The US Justice system is supposed to be "blind", supposed to be evidence-based and as free from human emotions as possible.Of course, we know that's not always true in practice, but that's the way it's supposed to work. And I believe that any video or testimony that does not add to the facts of the case, that only serves to more humanize the victim is actively harming the judicial system of blind justice and evidence-based trials. These videos are specifically designed to tug at the jurors' heartstrings, and to unfavorably bias the jury against the defendant.
They also, in my opinion, imply the assumption that not all humans are equal. The defendant is not an equal human to the victim (remember, the trial is to decide if the defendant is guilty or not, so he may not actually be the murderer or attacker), and the victim is deserving of more empathy than other people because this victim is so loved, has achieved so much, and has the potential to impact the world to such a degree.
The guilty should be determined guilty because he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not because the jury has an emotional response and a personal bias against some category of people the guilty falls into or because it's such a shame that this particular victim was a victim. The punishment should be determined based on the severity of the crime, not by how worthy the victim is to receive justice. A first-degree murder is a first-degree murder is a first-degree murder. I am appalled that one murder is worse than another based upon the importance of the victim. The victim is human, and that should be enough importance.
