Harman’s ideas for victim statements in trials…
Something I wrote for Dogma back in October, a bit old now:
Harriet Harman’s recently announced consultation paper to allow victims families more of a say in court is a populist, but ultimately, worrying scheme likely to cause more problems than it solves. Under the proposed scheme a family-member, lawyer, or so-called ‘victims-advocate’ would be able to read out a prepared statement outlining the loss they have suffered. The statement would be read out after the jury has convicted, but before the judge has carried out sentencing.
In England and Wales, as the law currently stands, counsel for the prosecution is able to read out a ‘victim impact statement’ prepared by the family of the deceased in court at the end of the trial, so the only thing likely to be gained by having a family member address the court is an emotive dimension to proceedings. Ideally though a court hearing should remain calm, balanced and as emotion-free as possible from beginning to end; the introduction of emotional testaments, designed to coerce judges into handing out tough sentences is likely to turn the idea of a fair and balanced trial on its head. However, it seems that this is exactly what the government is after, with Harman saying that: “If it means the sentence is higher on manslaughter than it might otherwise have been in the first instance without hearing from the victim’s relatives, I think that would be a good thing and that would be right.”
The new proposals may, of course, make no difference to the sentences handed-out by judges, and a victim’s family is unlikely to feel empowered by the system if, despite their best and most histrionic efforts, they still see the accused walking off with a minimum sentence. By tinkering with murder and manslaughter cases this way the government may just be making the process more painful and miserable for all concerned.
Another Catastrophe 
No trackbacks yet.