Why don't we respect the wishes of crime victims?

[closeupready]

I mean, why shouldn't we - in sentencing - account for the wishes of the victim, so that they feel justice has been properly served?

For example, if Polanski's victim says "let Polanski go!", should we let him go out of respect for her?

And if so, if she wanted to drug and rape him as he did her, should we let her do that with impunity?

Or do we instead support our de facto two tier system of justice that lets the rich and powerful get away with all kinds of things which, for poor people, lead to lives behind bars?

[Flaneur]

1. Some of us seek vicarious vengeance.

[closeupready]

2. So you disagree that a victim's wishes should have an impact on sentencing?

?

[Quantess]

6. That DUer can answer for him/herself, but to me

it looks like he/she is just answering your question matter-of-fact.

[Brickbat]

3. Justice isn't about the victims.

I know your OP is rhetorical, but really. I don't want any drugged rape going on, and the justice system is meant to punish it if it happens.

You've set up a false dichotomy as well. Respecting wishes of crime victims =/= destruction of what you call a two-tiered justice system.

[closeupready]

9. Okay, I don't necessarily disagree. But can you explain, generally, what is justice about?

if it's not about the vicims? By that I mean, "justice" is not just some fancy word we made up here on DU - it actually has meaning - can you define it generally so we all know what we're talking about?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. Read "the Republic"

[closeupready]

14. A simple definition will suffice (for my purposes).

Thanks.

[Brickbat]

16. I'm not a law student, so I'm essentially talking out of my ass here, but as I understand it, our

(admittedly, flawed) justice system is meant to express the disapproval of and punishment by society of people who commit crimes against society. A rapist hurts the victim, but he hurts society as well and society says, "We're not standing for that shit" and tries, convicts and punishes him regardless of what the victim thinks.

So I'm saying in the criminal justice system, justice is the expression of society saying "we don't stand for that shit."

But I can be convinced otherwise, I'm just talking this out between loads of laundry.

[uppityperson]

21. as well as acting as a message for future (insert crime here) ists.

If you knew you could commit a crime and get away with it, why not?

[closeupready]

24. Sure, why not employ 8 year olds to work in a pizzeria, pay them $2/hour,

and then when caught, pay these kids $100 cash and ask them to express their wish that the pizzeria be let off the hook? Or anything along those lines.

[uppityperson]

26. yup.

[paulsby]

4. because their concerns (the victims)

are not the sole concerns of the criminal justice system\

fwiw, the majority of domestic abusers i arrest also have a victim that does not want prosecution

the prosecution considers their wishes, but it is not the sole factor they consider.

iow, the justice system doesn't offer freebies to those who happened to abuse a victim that doesn't want prosecution for whatever reason.

[AllentownJake]

5. Legally the crime was not against the victim

It was against the state.

The victim of crimes are the plantif in civil cases not criminal cases.

[derby378]

8. Excellent point

Forgiveness from the victim should not be considered an automatic "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. The state has also suffered an insult from the accused, and it cannot be too quick to pardon in the interest of public safety and justice.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Some of us have Torquemada syndrome ,but somethings are civil matters

Saw 'Wanted & Desired ' Loved it and him. Her treatment is her business, his punishment isn't.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. If you think there is a two tier system of justice *now*, just wait until you let the victims decide

the sentencing. You're cutting out the middle man of an expensive lawyer. The accused can just pay the victim off and they are free to commit more crimes.

[dysfunctional press]

12. and if the rich and powerful can pay off a victim...how would that change anything?

you do know that roman paid his victim a bunch of money, right?
should that buy his freedom?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. because victims dont have to care if there are going to be future victims

however, we as society do care

[closeupready]

17. Yes, I agree - it's amazing

if you look at the Polanski thread du jour, his apologists are like, 'oh, she wants us to let it go, so we should just let it go'.

That's why I started this - if Samantha Geimer is the authority on whether Polanski has been effectively punished or has paid society back, then would they be saying "let her drug and rape him in the ass" if she stated that this is what she watned to do, and that then, "justice will have been served"? Obviously no. They want it both ways, and I find that terrifying.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. indeed. also victims could just want an ordeal for them ended

doesn't mean its in societies best interest

[Brickbat]

20. OK, not to be a stalker here, but I have to say your OP surprised me when I saw it -- I generally

like what you have to say, and your style reminds me of a friend of mine, so I read your posts with a lot of sympathy. But when I saw your OP, I was like, WTF? Is that rhetoric, or what? :think:

[closeupready]

22. Okay, did you see my response to Lioness just above?

Generally, when I start a thread, I try to generate productive discussion by posting something that is a little puzzling or contradictory and then ask people to attempt to explain. Sometimes, there is a legitimate explanation, other times, there is not, and people have to re-think the basics.

So if you were offended, I apologize for any misunderstanding. :) Peace.

[Brickbat]

25. Yup, it's clear to me now.

No need to apologize -- it's just funny how we put "voices" to the words on the screen and can take it so personally or be surprised when that voice (who, of course, is a real person typing those words) says things we don't expect. :)

[Xithras]

15. Because, in our system, the crime is committed against the state, and not a person.

The victim is merely a witness in the states case, with no more, or less, legal stanging than any other witness.

And in the case of Polanski's victim, she's no longer seeking to have it dropped. She made that statement years ago because she'd lived her entire adult life with this popping up every few years, and just wanted it settled one way or the other. If he's going to jail, it will still finally be settled to her satisfaction.

[LostInAnomie]

19. That would be setting up a system where the rich and powerful get away with everything.

Allowing victims to have the final say would open up a system where the rich and powerful would be able to bribe their way out of an crime, or use their leverage to keep victims from seeking harsh sentences.

[mitchum]

23. Because jurisprudence is not forgiving a faux pas at a cocktail party

[Ikonoklast]

27. If you can accept leniency on one side, you must be ready to accept the other.

What about a victim that calls for the most extreme punishment to be used against the perpetrator, the most severe sentence imposed, no parole considered?

Should we not also acquiesce to their wishes?

[closeupready]

28. Yup. That's my point.

n/t

[The Straight Story]

29. Because the rich could then buy off victims and be allowed to do as they wish(nt)

[JonQ]

30. Because justice is meant to be impartial and unemotional

for the victim that would be nearly impossible.

Granted it doesn't always work that way, but that's the goal.