Site menu:

Site search

Get Updates

Enter your email address to hear about new posts. (You can view my privacy policy here.)


RSS Recent Posts

Archives (month)


Victim statements: are they having the wrong impact?

In an episode of The West Wing from 2002, the (fictional) US President. Jed Bartlet, prepares for a presidential debate by considering how he should answer a question designed to challenge his opposition to capital punishment: “If your youngest daughter, Zoe, was raped and murdered, would you not want to see the man responsible put to death?”

Is a murderer more culpable if the victim is loved than if he has yet to find love?

The best answer, his adviser suggests, is to say that he would want the perpetrator to suffer a cruel and unusual death, which is why it’s probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don’t have legal rights in these situations.

I was reminded of that exchange by news reports today that the parents of a murder victim overheard the judge say that impact statements made by bereaved families make “no difference”. The judge was speaking in the context of parole assessment, not the original sentence, but he has started a wider debate.

The judge was unaware that the parents could hear him and, far from dismissing their feelings, was full of empathy. The overheard remarks have been reported as: “I feel so very sorry for these families. They make these statements thinking they are going to make a difference, but they make no difference at all. Someone should tell them.” Someone now has.

Since learning of this incident, I have heard two interviews today with bereaved parents of murder victims. One was grateful that the criminal justice system had allowed her a voice in the judicial process which, in all other respects, had treated her as having no part. The other was distressed that the effort and emotion which had been expended on preparing a statement had apparently all been for nothing.

See also:  Redknapp admits his guilt?

What are we to make of these victim impact statements (or “victim personal statements”, to give them their correct name in the English legal system)? Are they simply an opportunity to be heard – a chance to say “there were victims of this crime, not just statistics”? Or are these statements supposed to be part of the sentencing process: if we don’t know how much was suffered, how can we determine an appropriate punishment?

Few would argue that the punishment must fit the crime. But is it the criminal act that the punishment must fit or the consequences of the criminal act? Is a murderer more culpable if the victim is loved than if he has yet to find love? Should the punishment be increased if the family are able to speak eloquently of their loss, but not if they struggle for the right words? Is that any way to do justice?


Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.

Related articles on this website
A couple of matters caught my attention this morning, from the world of journalism and coffee shops. Part 1 ... Friday the fifteenth The Daily Mail wants us to believe that an ...
Read the complete article
From working as an independent expert witness, I know only too well that it is not unusual to find one’s client acting as though nothing the opposing party says can ...
Read the complete article
I’m not sure quite how to say this. So I’ll say it twice:Yesterday, a young graduate won her claim against the government’s back-to-work scheme. She argued that the regulations and ...
Read the complete article
Much has been written about the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court in the Brexit case. Political commentators tell us that the appeal is very likely to fail. Many lawyers ...
Read the complete article
The European courts have been causing controversy (again). Judgements handed down in Brussels and Strasbourg have left conservatives (small “c”) aghast and Liberals (big and small “L”) defending the rights-based ...
Read the complete article
What are the chances of being able to write a 2,000 page report on press regulation and walk away with all-party support (or even all-Party support)? Plainly, not very high. ...
Read the complete article
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, says that juries apply a “much higher test” than prosecutors do when deciding whether to pursue a case. If that is true, ...
Read the complete article
The Conservative Party has published plans to change Britain’s human rights law. They have been criticised by many lawyers. But, whilst the politicians may have got the law wrong, many ...
Read the complete article
Friday fiascos
We disagree … so you must be lying?
Journalists in a tiz at Supreme Court’s win-win decision
Brexit: supreme logic required
What equal pay teaches us about the Human Rights Act
Leveson – Is the battle already lost?
Testing times for the Director of Public Prosecutions
It’s lawyers v politicians in the battle for human rights