Posts
The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals of two defendants convicted of capital murder. The defendants argued that the victim impact videos shown during the sentencing phase of their respective trials unduly prejudiced the jury against them. Souter, Stevens and Breyer voted in favor of hearing the appeal, but the court requires 4 votes to hear an appeal. The two men were sentenced to death.
There are several cogent arguments against victim impact videos. Justice Steven's argued that the videos add nothing, but invite juries to make decisions based on sentiment over reason. Another argument is that victim impact videos cause further stratification among victims. The victim impact statements and testimony already give greater voice to those who left behind eloquent and passionate loved ones. Now will we see justice hinge on whether the victim's life can be summed up on video?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Is it really justice that will hinge on who has passionate, articulate, emotionally appealing living relatives who cared about the victim? Isn't it punishment? I am quibbling a little here, but "justice" has already decided the men are guilty at this stage, and now the jury gets to decide the punishment. And it seems to me that often the punishment phase of a trial is an effort to see just how "bad" the perpetrator is, and (in recent times) just how "good" the victim was. The videos can be a powerful message sender for the punishment phase, but so is a crying mother or father or child in the witness stand.
I really doubt this is why the Supremes turned this one down, but it seems the real question is should we dole out punishment based (in part) on how much the victim was loved? And how well her survivors convey their sense of horror and loss?
Post a Comment