Victims of crime

[Denny Crane!]

From tomorrow, victims of crime will have the right to submit a statement to court setting out the effect the crime has had on them when pilot schemes become operational in Kilmarnock, Ayr and Edinburgh.

The start date for the pilots coincides with the coming into force of provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which are aimed at giving victims of crime their own voice in the criminal justice system and improving support.

Joining the Solicitor General Elish Angiolini QC on a visit to Kilmarnock, Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson said:

"Only the victim of a crime fully understands the impact of the crime on their life. For too long the experiences of victims have been lost in the machinations of our criminal justice system. I want to ensure that we provide them with a loud, clear voice.

"Victims in many other countries already have a right to be heard and the Scottish Strategy for Victims published in 2001 committed the Executive to enabling victims to play a proper part in the criminal justice system.

"The schemes we are piloting both here in Ayrshire and in Edinburgh are key components of that pledge. The scheme will empower victims by giving them the right, for the first time, to have the opportunity to tell the court, in a written statement, about the physical, emotional and financial effect of the crime on them.

"While sentencing and the impact of the statement will, quite properly, remain matters for the court, victim statements will provide another piece of information available to the court as part of this process. Research of victim statement schemes in other countries show that, of those victims who choose to participate, many report greater satisfaction with the criminal justice system as a result.

"The scheme will run for an initial two years and will be closely evaluated on an ongoing basis. A multi-agency Victim Statement Steering Group will oversee the schemes. If the evaluation is successful we will look to expand victims statements across other areas of Scotland.

"Also today we are improving mechanisms for victims to access support by providing the police with a power to refer all victims who wish it, to Victim Support Scotland.

"These are important steps in restoring public confidence in criminal justice. We want a system that is fair for victims, fair for witnesses, fair for jurors - while upholding the right to a fair trial for the accused. In delivering that system we are delivering a safer, stronger Scotland."

This will be a national scheme for the entire UK.

Here is my uneducated take on it. The impact of a crime is much more far reaching than simply the crime itself. Obviously judges are aware of this but can they truly empathise with a victim of crime? A murder victims mother on radio 2 today ridiculed this idea by stating unless your son or daughter has been murdered you can never empathise.

The detractors of this scheme claim that the courtroom is a place for hard cold logic and reason. Free from the prejudice of emotion that might affect the judicial process.

Is this a two way street though, and this is an honest question from me. In a court without victim statements is the prosecutions arguement given enough weight? The defence is allowed to attack the character of the victim, plead the character of the defendant, plead mitigating circumstances or emotional distress or any other form of plea bargaining to try and reduce the sentence (and this last sentence shows how little I know about law I know ). Is it not fair to allow the prosecution to try and add gravity to there case by showing the impact of the crime not just on the victim but on the people around the victim. Or in a case that is not fatal the psychological damage of the victim.

Peter

[the Black Prince]

the point you make is valid (especially in terms of defence plea bargaining!!!!) but no, i disagree with the whole premise.

the prosecution doesn't prosecute on behalf of the victim, or his family, he prosecutes on behalf of the queen for a crime against the state. the effect on the victim has no bearing. the victim is the victim. a frontline witness, or a piece of evidence. no more.

according to a leading sociologist, and fouding father of criminology, crime is merely a necessary process of re-affirming existing social bonds and strengthening the social collective against outsiders (deviants/criminals). as such, in criminological theory, the view of society as a wqhole (portrayed by moral panics, social entrepreneurs and, alas, the media) are more important than the views of the victim.


furthermore, how is it relevant?
the jury find someone guilty on the basis of breaking a law, not by how much distress they may have caused.
if someone accidentally picks up my mobile phone, and later returns it to me they have done no wrong... but in the hours in which it has been missing i may have suffered a great deal of distress... that is not a crime. nor should it be.
the feelings of the victim simply are not relevant to a finding of fact or guilt by the jury.
whereas the defendants state of mind IS relevant as to whether he had the required level of intention to commit the offence charged.

from a judges point of view... sentancing already has way too many contradictory aims.
are we now to sentance people basded on how much pain they have caused the victims family? and how is that in anyway quantifiable?

no i'm very much against this...
justice isn't concverned with the victim in this manner, justice is concerned about punishing an offender, and reforming him to prevent it happening again, not making a victim feel better. ifg this is a happy by-product, thats all well and good, but it should not be an aim.

[Denny Crane!]

the point you make is valid (especially in terms of defence plea bargaining!!!!) but no, i disagree with the whole premise.

the prosecution doesn't prosecute on behalf of the victim, or his family, he prosecutes on behalf of the queen for a crime against the state. the effect on the victim has no bearing. the victim is the victim. a frontline witness, or a piece of evidence. no more.

So psychological damage to the victim is not applicable (eg. someone getting agraphobia after being mugged)? Or psychological damage to paedofile victims is a given fact or is it just already incorporated into the ideas of sentencing and what the victim has suffered?

according to a leading sociologist, and fouding father of criminology, crime is merely a necessary process of re-affirming existing social bonds and strengthening the social collective against outsiders (deviants/criminals). as such, in criminological theory, the view of society as a wqhole (portrayed by moral panics, social entrepreneurs and, alas, the media) are more important than the views of the victim.

wqhole? Never mind I'll google it (went right over my head).

Interesting though.

furthermore, how is it relevant?
the jury find someone guilty on the basis of breaking a law, not by how much distress they may have caused.
if someone accidentally picks up my mobile phone, and later returns it to me they have done no wrong... but in the hours in which it has been missing i may have suffered a great deal of distress... that is not a crime. nor should it be.
the feelings of the victim simply are not relevant to a finding of fact or guilt by the jury.
whereas the defendants state of mind IS relevant as to whether he had the required level of intention to commit the offence charged.

OK

from a judges point of view... sentancing already has way too many contradictory aims.
are we now to sentance people basded on how much pain they have caused the victims family? and how is that in anyway quantifiable?

Indeed it is not quantifiable or neccessarily relevant. Though then again how is attacking the defendants character?

no i'm very much against this...
justice isn't concverned with the victim in this manner, justice is concerned about punishing an offender, and reforming him to prevent it happening again, not making a victim feel better. ifg this is a happy by-product, thats all well and good, but it should not be an aim.

So is this a sop to the public, to try and make the public feel better about Labours record on crime or just misguided legislation? It seems like an appeal to popularity.

Peter

[the Black Prince]

its very much a sop to the public. labours record on law and order is atrocious. interestingly, the most effective law and order policy in recent years was the tories "Prison Works" system under Michael Howard as home secretary, and his youth justice policies saw the only fall in recorded youth crime since 1950.

labour have actually followed adopted and used a number of tory created policies, but the whole system is spinning outr of control, with prison numbers rising faster thabn prison places available (yet again) and judges being told actyively not to sentance people to prison. the stress it has put on the probation service to move people through the system has resulted in a number of recent high profile mistakes, where people who should never have been on early release committwed worse crimes outside.
labours response to that isn't to solve the problem, but to managerialise it, a solution that worked oh so well with the health service, and has so far only managed to **** of the probation service even more, to the extend that a national prison officers strike and a national probation service strike are actually both likely.

the spociology reference was to the work of Emile Durkheim

the prosecution cannot attack the defendants character direct, but neither can the defence attack the victims (don;t believe what yiou hear in the media about rape trials)
what the defence does do is try to portray the defendant in a good light, and as a man of good character, often by reference to his criminal record... though how saying "as you can see, he has no convictions for this kind of offence" puts him in a better light is beyond me.
the prosecution on the other hand, try to show him a worse light by pointing out previous notable convictions and how they might be relevant.

in most cases though, especially at magistrates level
the defendant pleads guilty
prosecution state charge and read the facts
defence tries to put the facts in a good light, and offer mitigation, defence only sometimes suggests a sentance
magistrates call for a pre-sentance report from the probation service
magistrates sentance on the basis of sentancing guidelines and PSR recommendations.
the defences main job is to either puit forward an actual defence, or convince the magistrates of any mitigating factors, which would include having a clean record.


physcological damage is a crime in its own right - (Common assault includes mental assault and physcological harm by placing the victim in fear of imminent harm)

[Spiff]

A lot of things arent quantifiable, mental harm for example cant really have a price tag for solatium placed on it, but they have to get a number from somewhere i suppose. All the relevant evidence that can be gathered should probably be used, and i suppose someone must consider the after effects on the victim relevant or this scheme wouldnt be running.

As far as sentencing goes i can see this as a relevant, but probably minor, factor - maybe theyre just trying to make the victim feel better by giving them some "closure"


So long as it doesnt get as bad as in America we'll be fine! Televised courts, parading the victims about to say a little speach to the defendent when he's found guilty.. its all a bit too much

[Denny Crane!]

A lot of things arent quantifiable, mental harm for example cant really have a price tag for solatium placed on it, but they have to get a number from somewhere i suppose. All the relevant evidence that can be gathered should probably be used, and i suppose someone must consider the after effects on the victim relevant or this scheme wouldnt be running.

As far as sentencing goes i can see this as a relevant, but probably minor, factor - maybe theyre just trying to make the victim feel better by giving them some "closure"


So long as it doesnt get as bad as in America we'll be fine! Televised courts, parading the victims about to say a little speach to the defendent when he's found guilty.. its all a bit too much

We have trial by media almost. There was lynch mobs for Ian Huntley and maxine carr before the guilty verdict had ever been pronounced. The media is more than capable of judging people before the courts, sometimes even if a non guilty verdict is returned it is to late for the reputation of that person and a footnote apology in the back of a paper won't help.

Peter

[Spiff]

That would only be the very highest profile sensationalist cases though, maybe 1 a year? I hardly think the thousands of cases per year are overly biased based on media attention.

Are you saying though that a jury would be biased or that the lives of the people accused are unfairly abused? or both?

In either case though i cant see a summary of the effects written by a victim as causing that much of a media frenzy.


EDIT:

And how many cases do you think there are that the media has directly caused unjust results?

[the Black Prince]

the media's influence on the jury is the worst part

everyday the read in the morning press about how evil these people are (on the basis of no evidence usually) and then have to sit in court and be expected to reach a reasoned and impartial verdict?? yeah... right...

the media is the worst trhing that ever happened to the criminal justice system. right now, no high profile case can escape media bias, and public opinion, whipped by the worst kind of moral entrepeneurs in the press cause a public opinion storm that forces a knee jerk reaction for the government thats usually poorly thought out and quite often does no good what so ever.
currently, criminal justice policy is based around, what people will accept, not what actually reduces crime, and no party will try and break that cycle for fear of being branded soft on crime.

[Denny Crane!]

Is this legislation not a sign of media influence? If what the BP says is true and it is just a sop to the public it surely must be in part due to the hysteria the media whips up in the public eye for violent crime etc.

Labour is nothing if not propaganda friendly.

Peter