[stupac2]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?

Then there is the widely lauded victim impact statement Turner’s victim read during the sentencing hearing. I am glad she wrote this extraordinarily powerful letter and glad so many millions have read and been moved by it. But it had absolutely no place in the courtroom. Victim impact statements were once a liberal bête noire, and rightly so, because they seriously undermine the defendant’s due process rights. In a criminal sentencing hearing, the judge (or jury) should consider only the facts of the case at hand in determining the defendant’s culpability. Victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings, allowing the judge or jury to be swayed by emotional response rather than logical reflection. That, in turn, shifts the focus away from the defendant and toward the victim while injecting arbitrariness into the sentencing process. The defendant’s punishment may well hinge on how emotionally compelling the victim can make his or her statement.

How does this undermine due process? As long as he has the ability to make his case too, which he quite apparently did, I don't see that at all. Further, understanding what the victim experienced is definitely a part of understanding the crime committed, isn't it? I suppose this circles back to the question of what our justice system is trying to accomplish in sentencing, but given that it appears to be some mishmash of retribution/rehabilitation there definitely seems to me to be a place for the victim's perspective to be introduced in sentencing.

That's my lay impression, we have plenty of lawyers here, maybe I'm missing something big (then again, some people claiming to be lawyers also took issue with that paragraph in the article's comments).

[stupac2]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?

Then there is the widely lauded victim impact statement Turner’s victim read during the sentencing hearing. I am glad she wrote this extraordinarily powerful letter and glad so many millions have read and been moved by it. But it had absolutely no place in the courtroom. Victim impact statements were once a liberal bête noire, and rightly so, because they seriously undermine the defendant’s due process rights. In a criminal sentencing hearing, the judge (or jury) should consider only the facts of the case at hand in determining the defendant’s culpability. Victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings, allowing the judge or jury to be swayed by emotional response rather than logical reflection. That, in turn, shifts the focus away from the defendant and toward the victim while injecting arbitrariness into the sentencing process. The defendant’s punishment may well hinge on how emotionally compelling the victim can make his or her statement.

How does this undermine due process? As long as he has the ability to make his case too, which he quite apparently did, I don't see that at all. Further, understanding what the victim experienced is definitely a part of understanding the crime committed, isn't it? I suppose this circles back to the question of what our justice system is trying to accomplish in sentencing, but given that it appears to be some mishmash of retribution/rehabilitation there definitely seems to me to be a place for the victim's perspective to be introduced in sentencing.

That's my lay impression, we have plenty of lawyers here, maybe I'm missing something big (then again, some people claiming to be lawyers also took issue with that paragraph in the article's comments).