[CTcard]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15166.msg164756#msg164756 date=1465524641]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?
[/quote]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

-------------
Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15166.msg164756#msg164756 date=1465524641]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?
[/quote]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

-------------
Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.