Victim Impact Statements: Good or Bad?

Within the traditions of the common law it has always been the case that crimes are not perpetrated against individuals but rather against the State. The primary victim may well suffer the indignity of a theft or an assault but the right to prosecute that crime has been vested in the State, eschewing the prior private vendettas of the Roman courts or the more openly violent wergeld system of northern european tribes.

Within this system there is a recognition that the violation of a law is a crime against us all, though manifestly only one or more among our society will directly suffer.

In recent times, following the example of the United States where victim impact statements stemmed from the cult-following which the Manson murders cultivated, the Irish legislature has seen fit to allow the victims of crime and their family members (until recently the latter only at the discretion of the trial judge) to make a statement to the court, prior to sentencing, detailing the impact that the crime has had on their lives.

This has been justified as giving closure to the family or, in the case of the first ever victim impact statement "transforming [her] from a murder victim to a symbol of victims rights". But is that justification enough?

What is the ultimate benefit of a victim impact statement? Most vividly demonstrated in the O'Donoghue case, the victim impact statement delivered by Majella Holohan essentially sought to destroy the remaining reputation of a young man who found himself in a terrible situation, committed a terrible crime and was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Judge Carney, commenting on the terrible abuse Mrs. Holohan made of the system recognised that the total protection that the court gave to such statements made them an awful soapbox from which to launch invectives upon the convicted.

Is this of any benefit to the family of the victim or to the victim themselves? By giving them this platform are we doing anything other than giving a megaphone to their grief and, on rare occasions, their anger and hate for the convicted? Victim impact statements do not seem to influence sentencing, they do not appear to be of any benefit to the victims themselves (certainly, having spoken to some counsellor friends of mine, it has no therapeutic benefit. The trial process tending to be highly traumatic for the victims)

What then does this achieve other than skewing the perceived purpose of the criminal justice system? By removing the individual victim from the crime we sought to place the communal entity which we all inhabit, that of the State, as the rightful prosecutor. By placing the victim back into the centre of the process we risk allowing invectives such as that of Ms. Holohan.

With the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 it will now be the right of family members of crime victims to give their own victim impact statements. Surely this increases the risk of the scenes witnessed in the Central Criminal Court during the O'Donoghue trial as angry family members are given the podium to vent their own anger and dismay? In allowing this are we not doing both the victim and the convicted a dis-service?

Delancey

I like to think that the Victim Impact Statement is a recognition by the State of the very personal pain suffered by a victim or their family and is a mechanism to allow for a degree of participation in the trial. A very common complaint by victims is they feel they are ignored and things are ' over their head '.
I would disagree that the impact on sentencing is negligible - there have been instances of families asking for leniency to an offender and judges will take that into account.
The O'Donoghue case was an unfortunate example of an abuse of the right/privilege and should not have happened but one should be careful not to '' throw out the baby with the bathwater ''.

1,000'th post - woohoo !

JohnK

Personally I feel they are a bad idea that has no place in the judicial system which should be impartial and not subject to the emotions of the victim. While a person might feel better if they can stand before the judge and say how terrible the crime committed against them was, thats not what justice is supposed to be about. Also I cant help but feel it surely creates a system where a more sympathetic victim gets a higher measure of justice than an unsympathetic one.

If it was up to me, the only statement a victim could make before sentencing would be some form of appeal for clemency if they were so inclined but thats where it should end.

drkpower

JohnK wrote: »

Personally I feel they are a bad idea that has no place in the judicial system which should be impartial and not subject to the emotions of the victim. While a person might feel better if they can stand before the judge and say how terrible the crime committed against them was, thats not what justice is supposed to be about.

Of course it is. The civil jurisdiction recognises the actual real life affect that a 'wrong' has on a particular individual, even if that wrong would have had a lesser affect on another. No reason why the criminal jurisdiction shouldnt take this into account. Just as a civil wrongdoer has to take their 'victim' as they find them, so should a criminal wrongdoer.

Note: it isnt the only consideration, nor should be the major one, but it should be a consideration.

JohnK

And if you're unable to articulate how you suffered then it should be deemed that your suffering "had a lesser affect"? This is my main problem with it; just because you might be better at getting your point across shouldnt lead to the presumption that my suffering was any less.

32minutes

personally i dont agree with the use of victim impact statements except in limited cases as was the case with sexual assaults where the primary victim may be afforded this option where it would be of genuine benefit to a traumatic experience.

one of the main reasons I dont agree with it is due to the fact that it adds a variable into the mix that doesnt help; if i commit a theft or a murder the deeds should be judged by a group of peers and an appropriate sentence handed down. If victim impact statements are brought in does this mean that I should target people without families as i am more likely to get a more lenient sentence ? or foreign nationals who may not be able to give as stirring a statement in front of a court due to the language barrier ?

this doesnt seem very fair, every crime that is commited is different but skewing the course of justice in some cases for what can be a negligible benefit seems like a rash course of action. there are better ways for us to help victims other than falsely giving them a sense that standing up in court is anything more than an attempt at a cathartic act and then washing our hands of them in the aftermath of the trial

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

or foreign nationals who may not be able to give as stirring a statement in front of a court due to the language barrier ?

Its not really about giving a stirring statement or not, it's about putting before the judge the impact that has been had on a person, most of the time this is in writing and most of the time it is fairly easy to express e.g. I lost a finger/can't play the piano, i had to move/am afraid to visit friends and family etc.

It's a good idea, because when passing sentence a judge should have all factors before him/her, which includes the impact the crime has had on one or several persons. And as delacey says above, sometimes the person making the VI statement will seek leniency or express forgiveness.

32minutes

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its not really about giving a stirring statement or not, it's about putting before the judge the impact that has been had on a person, most of the time this is in writing and most of the time it is fairly easy to express e.g. I lost a finger/can't play the piano, i had to move/am afraid to visit friends and family etc.

It's a good idea, because when passing sentence a judge should have all factors before him/her, which includes the impact the crime has had on one or several persons. And as delacey says above, sometimes the person making the VI statement will seek leniency or express forgiveness.

id absolutely agree with you that a judge should be in possession of all the facts before passing any sentence, but perhaps the victim of a crime isn't the most objective person to deliver this type of factual information.

If it's just the conveyance of the consequences of a crime then i can see the arguement for it but i still maintain that when someone commits a crime it shouldnt matter if the victim is a mother/father/sister/brother or anything else, a person should be punished appropriate to their crimes. this is a double edged sword because it also means that a criminal who commits a crime against someone who doesnt want to give a statement, is scared to or a murder victim with no family should not be punished any less due to the lack of a VIS.

drkpower

JohnK wrote: »

And if you're unable to articulate how you suffered then it should be deemed that your suffering "had a lesser affect"? This is my main problem with it; just because you might be better at getting your point across shouldnt lead to the presumption that my suffering was any less.

As JS says, it isnt that difficult to express, in simple terms, how a crime has affected your life. A judge doesnt need a VI statement in prose and rhyming couplets (with accompanying book of pop-up illustrations) to see the effect it has had on someone.

If that is the limits of your objection to VI statements, it isnt much of an objection at all.

32minutes

drkpower wrote: »

As JS says, it isnt that difficult to express, in simple terms, how a crime has affected your life. A judge doesnt need a VI statement in prose and rhyming couplets (with accompanying book of pop-up illustrations) to see the effect it has had on someone.

If that is the limits of your objection to VI statements, it isnt much of an objection at all.

i think your simplifying, if a judge gets two VIS and one is a two page essay about how a man with 4 kids cant leave the house anymore and gets very stressed with his wife and job, the other says that a man who is the victim of the same crime works from home, has no family and therefore doesnt have too much practical fallout; i personally dont see why the perpetrator of the 2nd crime should be punished any less and this is a real possibility with the introduction of universal VIS.

this is only a small arguement but at the same time the actual benefits of having VIS have not been shown to be in anyway substantial, possible cost vs. benefit balance is with not having them

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

As JS says, it isnt that difficult to express, in simple terms, how a crime has affected your life. A judge doesnt need a VI statement in prose and rhyming couplets (with accompanying book of pop-up illustrations) to see the effect it has had on someone.

If that is the limits of your objection to VI statements, it isnt much of an objection at all.

You've already said it yourself in this thread, the civil law deals with the trespass to the person (or what have you), the criminal law deals with the criminal act against the State.

In the former, the plaintiff would be more than within his rights to get on the stand and tell the court about his pain and suffering as a result of the theft, assault etc. In the latter there is no place for that.

Also, your point would make more sense if VI statements were made dispassionately, simply listing the actual outcomes for the victim. The court is no place for emotional catharsis and watching victims state how their lives have been ruined/devastated etc does nothing to further the cause of justice.

drkpower

32minutes wrote: »

i think your simplifying, if a judge gets two VIS and one is a two page essay about how a man with 4 kids cant leave the house anymore and gets very stressed with his wife and job, the other says that a man who is the victim of the same crime works from home, has no family and therefore doesnt have too much practical fallout; i personally dont see why the perpetrator of the 2nd crime should be punished any less and this is a real possibility with the introduction of universal VIS.

Why the hell not? Two guys punch two other guys in the head with the same force. Because of the peculiarities of their victim, one dies, the other has a nice shiner. One guy gets done for assault; the other for manslaughter.

The affect on the victim is already a relevent and important factor, both in civil and criminal law. Pretending it isnt is just silly. And suggesting that the impact a crime has on a victim should be ignored makes absolutely no sense.

Btw, your example above is a little unusual; presumably the second guy has other reasons to leave the house.....? If he is not that stressed by the events then, of course, that is a relevent factor to be taken into consideration by the judge.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

You've already said it yourself in this thread, the civil law deals with the trespass to the person (or what have you), the criminal law deals with the criminal act against the State.

In the former, the plaintiff would be more than within his rights to get on the stand and tell the court about his pain and suffering as a result of the theft, assault etc. In the latter there is no place for that. .

Of course it is the place for it!! The criminal law recognises the affect of a crime on the victim (assault v assault causing serious harm v manslaughter; potentially the same act but with a very different affect). The affect on the victim is codified within the very offences themselves. All I am suggesting is that the wider affect on the individual is taken into consideration.

Criminal laws are prosecuted by the State but that is a different thing to say they relate to offences against the State. Of course criminal laws dela with deals with criminal acts against the person.....!!! Google Offence against the Person and see what you get.....

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, your point would make more sense if VI statements were made dispassionately, simply listing the actual outcomes for the victim. The court is no place for emotional catharsis and watching victims state how their lives have been ruined/devastated etc does nothing to further the cause of justice.

I have no real problem with that suggestion. Or a suggestion that the VIS be delivered in writing only. Or read to the judge in chambers. The location and the method of delivery of the VIS is a lesser concern. Personally, I think that a judge is capable of dispassionately assessing a passionately scripted VIS and that the victim has 'earned' the right to air/vent their circumstances in public, but as I say, the mechanism of delivery is a secondary issue, one that concerns me less.

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

Of course it is the place for it!! The criminal law recognises the affect of a crime on the victim (assault v assault causing serious harm v manslaughter; potentially the same act but with a very different affect). The affect on the victim is codified within the very offences themselves. All I am suggesting is that the wider affect on the individual is taken into consideration.

An offence under the OAP Act is an offence against the State. Manslaughter is a very interesting one to mention on your part as it perfectly demonstrates my point that the recognition, within the law, of differing degrees of crimes such as assault is not a recognition of effect on the victim, but rather a recognition of culpability on the part of the offender. While there is an obvious nexus between the two positions, within the overall scope of the criminal law it is the culpability, and not the result, that determines the offence.

As an illustration let us return to your point of manslaughter. Manslaughter and murder both have the same result. The victim is dead. However they are not equally punished. By your formula the outcome and the affect are the scope through which the criminal law is determined and not the culpability. I know you see that both should be taken into account and I do not deny that they are but only the immediate results and not any ancillary emotional effects or otherwise are taken into account.

Victim impact statements are only about those ancillary and irrelevant issues that the judge does not know. The loss of a finger, teeth, etc will all be known to the judge long before sentencing. The fact the man cries himself to sleep because he lost the teeth is a matter for the civil law and not the criminal law.

drkpower wrote: »

Criminal laws are prosecuted by the State but that is a different thing to say they relate to offences against the State. Of course criminal laws dela with deals with criminal acts against the person.....!!! Google Offence against the Person and see what you get.....

The State established laws and if you violate one, regardless of which one, it is a crime against the State for violating the rules that we, as the State, have established in order to regulate our society. This is the essential division between criminal and civil law. All criminal offences are offences against the State, hence why the State (the People at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) prosecute the case rather than the victim.

Bosco boy

JohnK wrote: »

Personally I feel they are a bad idea that has no place in the judicial system which should be impartial and not subject to the emotions of the victim. While a person might feel better if they can stand before the judge and say how terrible the crime committed against them was, thats not what justice is supposed to be about. Also I cant help but feel it surely creates a system where a more sympathetic victim gets a higher measure of justice than an unsympathetic one.

If it was up to me, the only statement a victim could make before sentencing would be some form of appeal for clemency if they were so inclined but thats where it should end.

the defence don't like victim impact statements simply because it can undo alot of the mitigation they are trying to do for their client, victims deserve to be heard and have been nobodies in the system only being treated as witnesses in the past, it does help in the healing process, I believe it can impact on sentencing in some cases as it can give a true reflection to the court of how life changing the crimes have been, the statement should probally be
read by a court clerk in order to avoid people overstepping the mark.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I know you see that both should be taken into account and I do not deny that they are but only the immediate results and not any ancillary emotional effects or otherwise are taken into account.

Victim impact statements are only about those ancillary and irrelevant issues that the judge does not know. The loss of a finger, teeth, etc will all be known to the judge long before sentencing. The fact the man cries himself to sleep because he lost the teeth is a matter for the civil law and not the criminal law.

Unfortunately your analysis is based on the belief that a physical injury is immediate and relevent while a psychiatric or psychological injury is irrelvent and ancillary. That is both a misunderstanding of medicine and law.

The criminal law does not just concern itself over whether you have sustained a broken finger; it also is concerned about whether people have suffered emotional, psychological and psychiatric injury. There is no reason that a court should not consider all that a victim has suffered when sentencing.

JohnK

Bosco boy wrote: »

... the statement should probally be read by a court clerk in order to avoid people overstepping the mark.

Actually thats a good idea and if the statements are to remain a part of the system then thats the way it should be done. At least that would take the, for lack of a better phrase, performance of the victim out of the equation and puts everyone on a level field.

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

Unfortunately your analysis is based on the belief that a physical injury is immediate and relevent while a psychiatric or psychological injury is irrelvent and ancillary. That is both a misunderstanding of medicine and law.

The criminal law does not just concern itself over whether you have sustained a broken finger; it also is concerned about whether people have suffered emotional, psychological and psychiatric injury. There is no reason that a court should not consider all that a victim has suffered when sentencing.

I can assure you I have no misunderstanding of either medicine or law. Emotional injury, or negligently inflicted psychological harm, is a tort and not a crime. Just as I have stated previously, it is clearly demarcated by criminal and civil law.

While the courts do take cognisance of emotional factors in a number of ways (early guilty pleas get lesser sentences as they save the victim the trauma of a trial) they should not do so when sentencing

Your post also presupposes that I speak about all emotional issues as irrelevant. Certainly I do not. One of the aggravating factors of a rape or a murder is the grave emotional distress suffered by the victims and their families and certainly the court takes account of this, in fact the emotional element is almost inherent in the view the criminal law takes of the crime. Although it remains, primarily, an offence against the state.

However, the inclusion of the emotional impact is a new element in the criminal law and not one which, I believe, should remain. The novelty of this is proven in the very fact of s.5(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 which introduced the courts ability and obligation to take such things into account. The fact that such statements have only existed since the mid-80's anywhere in the world testify to their novelty.

I am not averse to changes in the law, nor am I averse to victims using the appropriate avenues to find justice for their emotional distress. I simply do not believe that the victims or justice benefits from the inclusion of victim impact statements.

I recognise that this has developed into a discussion about appropriate considerations in sentencing and that, ultimately, it appears we have different views on the basis of the law. However, I will not stoop to your tactic of implying that you have no understanding of the law and simply state that it is an interesting and, that remark aside, enjoyable discussion of the law.

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I can assure you I have no misunderstanding of either medicine or law. Emotional injury, or negligently inflicted psychological harm, is a tort and not a crime. Just as I have stated previously, it is clearly demarcated by criminal and civil law.

Nonsense. It is clear as day that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both. Assault causing harm includes 'harm to body or mind'. Assault causing harm is a criminal offence. Harrassment is a criminal offence. Threats (in certain circumstances) are criminal offences. All of the above do not involve physical injury. They all involve some form of pscychological or emotional harm. They are all criminal offences. There are plenty more in that vein.

You can reply with another essay of irrelevences. But it is entirely clear, as I said at the outset, that the crimininal law does, and should, consider emotional, psychological and psychiatric harm.

You did read where I wrote about the numerous ways in which psychological and emotional factors are relevant right? I also assume you read about how I didn't feel irrelevant emotional (note I never said psychological) issues should be omitted from the sentencing process.

I hold my hands up in that the way I phrased the issue of emotional injuries was totally incorrect. Obviously the statute makes room for psychological injury and I was wrong to say otherwise. However that is not what I am arguing. If the crime included a psychological injury that would have been pleaded before the court. The VI statement is not allowed to introduce new evidence (per the Supreme Court in O'Donoghue) and as such is totally useless in such circumstances. Also, the new legislation, which was the impetus for this thread, allows family members of victims to give the VI statement in certain circumstances, the pain and suffering then not falling on the victim but on others.

These are the circumstances in which I am arguing such statements are irrelevant.

Also, your assertion that my post was full of irrelevancies is complete tripe. I began this thread specifically discussing Victim Impact Statements. We got sidetracked and I tried to pull it back on topic by bridging the gap between our off-topic discussion of the role of emotional factors in sentencing and the initial point. If you want to be glib and insulting I'll just leave you to it.

32minutes

drkpower wrote: »

Why the hell not? Two guys punch two other guys in the head with the same force. Because of the peculiarities of their victim, one dies, the other has a nice shiner. One guy gets done for assault; the other for manslaughter.

The affect on the victim is already a relevent and important factor, both in civil and criminal law. Pretending it isnt is just silly. And suggesting that the impact a crime has on a victim should be ignored makes absolutely no sense.

Btw, your example above is a little unusual; presumably the second guy has other reasons to leave the house.....? If he is not that stressed by the events then, of course, that is a relevent factor to be taken into consideration by the judge.

youve given a great example of the eggshell skull rule in work there but it is completely irrelevant to victim impact statements- victim impact statements are concerned with the effect a crime has had on a particular person after the crime, if the direct effect of a crime is different eg death vs merely injury of course this should be taken into consideration but im pretty sure a judge wouldnt need a VIS to discover this fact.

also are you trying to say that if the second character in my example isnt stressed then the perpetrator should be punished LESS ??? if you are then thats a pretty capricious and sterile way to run a legal system, the person who suffers less gets less justice because they happen to have a stronger disposition.

no one on this thread has yet to actually point out strong benefits of having VIS used, as stated in the OP psychological benefits have shown to be negligible, arguing against the very real potential downsides to having them is not a reason to roll them out generally.

just to point out aswel the courts clearly do take into account the effect on victims, its just that a court of law is not a place for emotional healing; what im saying is that we shouldnt ignore the effect on a victim but we should take REAL steps to help them, counselling, funding, protection after the case in case of distress, information relating to the offenders release for more cases

drkpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I hold my hands up in that the way I phrased the issue of emotional injuries was totally incorrect. Obviously the statute makes room for psychological injury and I was wrong to say otherwise. However that is not what I am arguing. If the crime included a psychological injury that would have been pleaded before the court. The VI statement is not allowed to introduce new evidence (per the Supreme Court in O'Donoghue) and as such is totally useless in such circumstances. Also, the new legislation, which was the impetus for this thread, allows family members of victims to give the VI statement in certain circumstances, the pain and suffering then not falling on the victim but on others.

Let me re-state this in simple terms, because you seem insistent on writing an (inaccurate) undergraduate essay every time you reply. You need to get out of that habit. The criminal law accepts that emotional, psychological and psychiatric injuries are 'harm' and are relevent factors. Therefore, there is no good reason why the harm caused to the victim should not be taken into consideration by a judge, even where the offence committed is not consitituted by the harm cused.

Example; 2 cases of armed robbery - victim A suffers PTSD, life destroyed as a result; victim B, for whatever reason, is a bit upset by it but got over it quickly. The 'harm' suferred by A & B is not the essence of the offence and the perpetrator of the crime will be convicted without any proof of 'harm'. But the harm is not, and should not be, irrelevent. Avoiding 'harm' to Joe Public is the primary reason we have a crime of armed robbery. A judge should be entitled to take into consideration the 'harm' caused before sentencing.

drkpower

32minutes wrote: »

youve given a great example of the eggshell skull rule in work there but it is completely irrelevant to victim impact statements- victim impact statements are concerned with the effect a crime has had on a particular person after the crime, if the direct effect of a crime is different eg death vs merely injury of course this should be taken into consideration but im pretty sure a judge wouldnt need a VIS to discover this fact.

Yes, the effect a crime has had on a particular person. That may be clear where you have a dead victim and a live one. It isnt so clear when you have two live ones with vastly different emotional, psychological and psychiatric injuries.

32minutes wrote: »

also are you trying to say that if the second character in my example isnt stressed then the perpetrator should be punished LESS ??? if you are then thats a pretty capricious and sterile way to run a legal system, the person who suffers less gets less justice because they happen to have a stronger disposition..

Lol!
A perpetrator in respect of a victim who suffers 'harm' (ie. box to the face, bruised jaw - assault causing harm) will usually 'get less' than a perp in respect of a victim who suffers 'serious harm' (box to the face, broken and disfigured jaw -assault causing serious harm). So does one of these victims get 'less justice' merely because one has a stronger disposition (or jaw bone to be precise):rolleyes: I am simply saying that the actual real-life effect on a victim should play a role in sentencing. The criminal law already does this.

32minutes wrote: »

just to point out aswel the courts clearly do take into account the effect on victims, its just that a court of law is not a place for emotional healing;

Of course it is; it is one of the reasons we have a criminal justice system. so that a victim (and the rest of us) can see that justice is done. And time & time again, it has been found that emotional, psychological and psychiatric symptoms are improved by justice, or at least by what the sufferor perceives as justice. But that is an aside.

Bosco boy

It seems to me that some people resent the victim being allowed to have an imput into the legal system, it's far too easy to say that the victim gains little from it, defence counsel do not want them to be heard because the tell the true impact of the crime which the defence counsel are trying to play down, it's time victims were given the consideration they deserve rather than trying to gag them!! If some people were present when the news is being broken to them that their child has been raped and murdered or killed by a dangerous driver they might be understand why it could mean so much to them to be heard rather than ignored by the court!

32minutes

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, the effect a crime has had on a particular person. That may be clear where you have a dead victim and a live one. It isnt so clear when you have two live ones with vastly different emotional, psychological and psychiatric injuries.



Lol!
A perpetrator in respect of a victim who suffers 'harm' (ie. box to the face, bruised jaw - assault causing harm) will usually 'get less' than a perp in respect of a victim who suffers 'serious harm' (box to the face, broken and disfigured jaw -assault causing serious harm). So does one of these victims get 'less justice' merely because one has a stronger disposition (or jaw bone to be precise):rolleyes: I am simply saying that the actual real-life effect on a victim should play a role in sentencing. The criminal law already does this.



Of course it is; it is one of the reasons we have a criminal justice system. so that a victim (and the rest of us) can see that justice is done. And time & time again, it has been found that emotional, psychological and psychiatric symptoms are improved by justice, or at least by what the sufferor perceives as justice. But that is an aside.

I can see where your coming form in the perception of justice but I have stated before that a false sense that a VIS is impacting the sentencing or the court proceedings is mothballing the real issue of the treatment of victims and just giving them a token status so unless it's agreed that firstly that VIS should be taken into a/c in sentencing that is as you said an aside.

I have no doubt that a more significant injury resultant from the same offence should be taken into account by a judge and that a criminal must 'take their victim as they find them' but in civil law this is fine as remoteness is an issue and remuneration can reflect this further suffering particular to the case but in criminal law I believe it is better to have a consistent system based on the culpability of the offender which makes sentencing much more consistent and again does not allow a more lenient punishment for those who happen to commit a crime against someone without a whole lot to lose; what you are suggesting is that society (the courts) should punish people less if they happen to attack/rob/murder a victim who doesnt have a family or a job or an active social life and you can 'lol' as much as you like but I don't believe that to be an equitable system.

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

also are you trying to say that if the second character in my example isnt stressed then the perpetrator should be punished LESS ??? if you are then thats a pretty capricious and sterile way to run a legal system, the person who suffers less gets less justice because they happen to have a stronger disposition.

I suppose that the people who get the least amount of justice are those who are too afraid to go into court in the first place. That's tragic, but unfortunately there is not a lot that can be done about it. Similiarly, while you may well have two almost identical assaults where one person recovers better than the other that on that point alone there will be different levels of sentencing, but again there's not a lot that can be done about this either.

It seems senseless to throw out an otherwise good part of the criminal law purely because it cannot always produce uniform results.