I'm doing a report on wether or not the families of crime victims should be allowed to choose the punishment for the accused. Should this be legalized for the victims' rights or it is unfair.
2006-11-06 03:26:31 · 10 answers · asked by Silent 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No. Revenge is not what we are looking for. True justice is. I believe in very strict punishment but let the jury decide.
2006-11-06 03:29:40 · answer #1 · answered by just curious 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This would be legalized revenge. We have laws so that we don't have revenge killings, feuds, dueling, vigilantes, and the like. We have laws so that cooler heads decide on guilt and parties neutral to the crime decide on how much the punishment fits the crime.
Victims of crimes have the right to the equal protection of the law - they have a right to expect and get the state to prosecute the person who committed the crime against them, the same as any other person.
So called "victim's rights" are just attempts to get the state to do the bidding of the person against whom the crime was committed. This sounds unsympathetic to crime victims, but just because a crime's perpetrator does not get the punishment the victim wants does not necessarily mean the punishment is unfair.
2006-11-06 03:44:30 · answer #2 · answered by sonyack 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I'd like to say yes. I know if anyone commited a crime against anyone in my family I'd like to choose the punishment!!!!
But actually, I think it's right that they don't because the punishment dished out could be very out of step with whatever the crime was.
You see it would be a very strong EMOTIONAL choice so could at times be irrational. So in a way, I think the law protects us.
(Even though some of the punishments they dish out are ludicrous! This is what I think really needs addressing, so that families wouldn't have to maybe lose someone to crime when the criminal gets 2 years or less! Now THAT makes me really mad!
2006-11-06 04:15:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the other postings. No, the victim and family would be too emotionally involved. The punishment must be handed out by a disinterested third party. This may not seem fair, but there is a huge difference between justice and fairness.
2006-11-06 03:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by Dr Know It All 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because the system of justice should be neutral, and if the victims chose the punishment, the element of revenge would enter into the decision. Further, there would be no consistency to the punishments for crimes committed. I hope you agree.
Chow!!
2006-11-06 03:37:04 · answer #5 · answered by No one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, the reason for having a judge an jury is to dole out punishment according to the crime. When you interject familial emotions, everything gets infected and there is no way to ensure the punishment fits the crime.
2006-11-06 03:32:10 · answer #6 · answered by snvffy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No they should not be able to choose because they would not be objective.
The family of the victim, or the victim themselves, would be far too emotionally involved to give a fair verdict and would result in extreme veridicts that are far beyond what the crime called for.
2006-11-06 03:35:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, typically having one person or small group directly affected by the cirme will result in a disproportionate and definitely disparate treatment of criminals and justice. One family might want a death sentence for stealing mail, another might forgive a murderer.
Crime does not merely affect the victim; it affects the community. Additionally, the community administers the punishment. As a result, the response should be communally decided and dispersed.
2006-11-06 03:29:34 · answer #8 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. The victim's families can only forgive and not punish.
2006-11-06 03:37:54 · answer #9 · answered by billykok2003 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-11-06 03:58:44 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋