A small but vital gain for victims
April 21st, 2011 at 12:21 pm by David FarrarAndrea Vance at Stuff reports:
Victims will soon have much more freedom in what they say in impact statements to court, under reforms announced today.
At the moment the victims of violence and other serious offences must ask permission from the judge to read out a statement, before sentencing, saying how a crime has affected them.
They are also banned from mentioning a range of details and a number of victims have been left upset after a judge has censored their words.
Gil Elliott, the father of murder victim Sophie, and Rachel Kitson, mother of slain Christchurch woman Vanessa Pickering, were left distraught when their statements were edited.
It has been outraegous that the criminals get to say whatever they like in court, often blackening the names of their victims, yet the families of the victims get their words censored.
Who cares if the parents of a murder victim, call the killer a scum suckling lowlife, and they hope he burns in hell. So long as they don’t actually advocate ilegal acts they should be allowed to say what they genuinely feel. Forcing them to read out a statement which they did not author, re-victimises them.
This is not a huge change in terms of the courts, but a very important one for victims and their families.
Related posts:
- Victim Impact Statements
- Victim Statements in Court
- The Sensible Sentencing Trust
- Coddington on Provocation
April 21st, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Why not allow rotten food to be thrown ant them as well? Convicted criminals rarely say anything at sentencing so the comment about saying ‘whatever they want’ (which is incorrect, anyway) either applies to the defendant giving evidence or else an overwhelmingly small number of people.
This change is unnecessary and will simply allow personal abuse to be hurled at the defendant at a time when they are generally at their lowest. Oh, I know the unaware focus on the Weatherstons and the Chastons. However, that is a minority. Incidentally, if a person is subsequently exonerated, will the complainant that does abuse the defendant then have to apologise?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Oh for god’s sake F E Smith, are you serious? ” at a time when they are generally at their lowest.”. Cue the violins. My heart fucking bleeds.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Yeah, poor convicted criminals. I certainly feel the most sympathy right at the time they are found guilty of committing a serious crime.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Nah come on guys
Vote:FE Smith is just taking the piss.
Nobody is that friggin out of touch with what most people think of violent offenders
April 21st, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Generally don’t have a problem with the changes, but this is what annoys me
Quote
“Who cares if the parents of a murder victim, call the killer a scum suckling lowlife, and they hope he burns in hell. So long as they don’t actually advocate ilegal acts they should be allowed to say what they genuinely feel. Forcing them to read out a statement which they did not author, re-victimises them”
The Parents of a murder victim are just that. They are parents, or in other cases friends, family, knew them in school, played footie with them, talked to them once at the shops
Vote:They are not victims
The victim is the poor person that got killed
April 21st, 2011 at 12:58 pm
To be fair on those that don’t want to say anything shouldn’y it be a part of the whole deal, like:
“I sentence you to 16 years prison with a non-parole period of 10 years, plus a bollocking from the victim.”
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Lance (661) Says:
…..Nobody is that friggin out of touch with what most people think of violent offenders…..”
Lance I think you’d find FES is more in touch with this subject than almost anyone who posts here
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
F E Smith- You’re quite right…that Liam Reid character certainly looked “at his lowest” when he was bowing and smirking at the family of the young deaf girl he raped and murdered. Weatherston also,deserves our sympathy as he smirks and gloats through the trial process…
Have you ever visited planet earth?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
>>The victim is the poor person that got killed
They feel nothing.
The victims are the loved ones left behind.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:03 pm
>>Why not allow rotten food to be thrown ant them as well?
A fine suggestion.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Read what is actually proposed, not just the article. This will apply to all offences, not just violence offences. Moreover, it is essentially window dressing as very few victims even attend sentencing.
Finally, I don’t care what the general public think- the idea of mob rule in criminal justice issues is abhorrent. And before you all go saying it, I am not a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ and neither am I ‘out of touch’. I and members of my family have been victims of crime, some of it serious. What I won’t do, however, is support my rights in the criminal justice process to be restricted or abolished, or the process to be made into a joke, just to allow victims to make vituperative comments.
Anyway, it looks like much of what people like Gil Elliot complain of won’t be amendended at all.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Why can’t the victim impact statement concept be extended to the ballot box? Allow some space for “comments”.
Somehow, just voting those shonky evil mongrel pricks and their disgraceful crooked lapdog out of office in November 08 just wasn’t enough. I was a victim too you know.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Not allowed to abuse the offender? WHAT.THE.FUCK????
Some pos mutilates your daughter and decides it was her fault while being an arogant prick in his trial but lets not call him rude names becuase THAt would be bad.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I too am concerned with the “hangs too good for them” mentality that seems to be driving much of the policy in this area.
If we are to allow victims and the friends or relatives of the deceased to make statements in court prior to sentencing, I would much prefer that it be done in private, with no-one but the convicted person, the person making the statement, the judge and counsel present. The pillory was abolished as a form of punishment in England and Wales in 1837 and I don’t want it restored in New Zealand in 2011.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Lance suggests:
Oh, so this move only applies to violent offenders, then? Or will some shop owner be invited to abuse the homeless person who stole some food?
I ask because I’m involved in the defence of a young couple with a child, and one on the way, who’ve been sleeping in their car after the husband – who’d worked his entire life – lost his job after an injury put him out of work (no ACC in Australia, you wait years to sue someone, then lose most of the settlement to a lawyer). They took some food from a supermarket.
I’d say they’re pretty much “at their lowest” right now…
Of course DPF and his conservative think tank clients want you to conjure up images of Weatherston and Liam Reid when you imagine this scenario. But there’s a reason low lives like that make the newspapers – their crimes are still, thankfully, rare.
Most of the thousands and thousands of defendants who come before the courts generally aren’t manipulative killers or smirking rapists (about whom I wouldn’t argue the families of victims have a right to say whatever they want) but people whose lives are desperate and who’ve done something stupid. Haranguing them isn’t going to help.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I guess these w**kers are at their lowest as the got caught and are hopefully going inside for a long time and they know it. Good job, victims don’t seem to have enough rights, it’s all about rehabilitating the poor misunderstood criminal who didn’t know better because of their poor unbringing or they used too many drugs and didn’t know right from wrong blah blah.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:22 pm
FES, I’m in your camp.
Vote:Victim impact statements are about the impact of the offending on a victim.
Not an incohate and often incoherent expression of rage.
Extending them to make them become a ritual abuse session is getting far too close to the lynch mob.
April 21st, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“Victims will soon have much more freedom in what they say in impact statements ”
It should have always been this way. FE Smith..you are an out of touch idiot and any smidgen of respect I peviously had for you has just flown out the window.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Most crims are remorseful. That is because a lot of the more serious offending is unplanned and done thoughtlessly. The instance of remorseless killers like Weatherston is very low. But think about this- a parent spanks a child in public, is prosecuted and convicted. Should the child be allowed to abuse their parent in court. Or someone hits a cyclist because they did not see them- should the cyclist be allowed to abuse the ‘criminal’ at sentencing? Or when a wealthy man chases a young tagger with a knife and kills hin; imagine what the taggers family would say.
This change will apply to all situations, not just the worst ones that get the headlines. There is no need for change. I have seen eloquent victim impact statements that conveyed the damage done without resorting to abuse. That is far more effective than calling an offender ‘scum’ and hoping he/she rots in he’ll.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Victims and their families often serve a sentence of pain long after the offender has served his limited period of detention. They have often been treated with contempt by the offender and his mouthpiece and by indifference from the Judge.
Vote:Kudos to Simon POWER for having the courage to bring forth this reform in the face of opposition from the Legal elite. He is the first Justice Minister in decades to actually do anything positive in the administration of law and order instead of spouting meaningless hot air. It is a real shame he is to leave Parliament.
April 21st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
georgebolwing says:
This is one of those rare occasions when I disagree with you. I’ve seen (on video) statements made by murder victims’ family to their loved one’s killer. One can’t fail to be moved (unless you’re a psychopath). You feel helpless and, even though you don’t know these people, you desperately want to do something to reduce their raw pain.
I realise witnessing such events won’t deter a Weatherston, who is incapable of empathy. But – to pick another well known case – what if Bruce Emery had seen the mothers and sisters and brothers and fathers of dead people break down and to seen their pain exposed? Perhaps he might have moderated his rage that night and not picked up a knife and gone running after Cameron.
If victims (but only victms of serious crime, as I’ve said above) are prepared to go through this process then I think it should be in open court and, frankly, I hope as many people as possible get to see it. Because if it makes even one person think twice about the devastation they could potentially cause by the action they’re about to take then that, I think, will be the primary good it can do.
edit: FE Smith – snap! We both thought of Emery. I wonder what the hardliners would think if Cameron’s mother had been allowed to vent at him in court?! The difference is, I think it might have been quite useful to allow her to do so, for the reasons set out above.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Hear you, Rex.
And good to hear some common sense, Alex.
How about this, boy and girls: a gang member with a long criminal history of serious violence and drug offences ‘stands over’ a man who owes him money (for drugs, so an addict and not a saint, but nowhere near as bad as the gang member). The man’s family is threatened, he is threatened, comparatively low level violence is committed by the gang member and the man gets a gun and shoots the gang member during a heated confrontation. The nan is convicted of manslaughter (this is pre-Weatherston). Should the gang members family be allowed to stand in court and abuse the defendant, even though he really did society a favour by killing the gang member?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:52 pm
One of the problems sems to be the definition of “victim” and I am not entirely sure that affected family saying their piece achieves a hell of a lot except to make the family members feel better. Is that really a function of the court system.?
It might make sense to suggest that it is the judge who needs to appreciate the impact of the crime when considering sentence but even that falls over as an argument when you get obviously deeply affected people who, because of their religious beliefs have a generous outlook on life, say that they have only forgiveness and compassion for the perpetrator. Hard to say that a situation such as that should prompt the judge to throw away the keys.
All we are setting up is an opportunity for the loudest wailers and the less than articulate to curse in public. What the hell is that going to achieve?
But I repeat – first define “victim” and I might reconsider.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Is there a more precious and arrogant group in NZ than those employed in the legal ‘profession’?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“Is there a more precious and arrogant group in NZ than those employed in the legal ‘profession’?”
Vote:Why yes there is. Anyone with over 5000 kiwiblog or standard posts becomes an automatic member.
I hope to get there some day.
On subject. This has got to be some of the wettest proposal for change I have ever seen. National are simply pandering to a perceived need for greater justice without actually delivering any. Pathetic.
April 21st, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Well at the risk of sounding precious & arrogant, and believe me no one is further from the legal profession than me BB.
I must agree with FES, don’t get me wrong, I have no time what so ever for scumbag rapists killers or what ever, but how far do we go with venting of our spleens?
Do we really feel better after? A statement by all means, but at least have a rule of civility about it, or we become no better than the offender.
I heard Leighton Smith this morning saying he disagrees with victim impact statements, not because they are wrong per say, but why would you allow the perp to get yet more attention, or give you the fingers, or tell you to get fucked (or words to that effect) cause they don’t care.
I don’t agree with him, I think close family who feel the need to state something should be given the opportunity all right, no worries, but abusing the offender just cause ya can somehow ain’t right.
Thats why the victim isn’t in the dock, cause they are better than the offender.
Call me a bleeding heart..there you go.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:19 pm
LOL @ m@tt. Got it in one.
Is there any more precious and arrogant group than those who, having had no greater contact with the justice system than the occasional parking ticket (if that) think they have not just an opinion on matters of justice, but the only one worth listening to?
FE Smith:
You keep calling victim statements in court “abuse”. While none I’ve seen have been particularly complimentary of the accused, 90% of the time is spent explaining how it feels to have a family member taken from you in that way. I should make it clear that when I express limited support for the idea, I’m not suggesting – as DPF seems to be – that there be no restrictions on what’s said. Abusing an offender and sititng down is likely to have the reverse effect – someone inclined towards guilt and shame will understandably become defensive.
I would hope victim support people would work with the survivors to help them craft something that expresses their anger and grief without simply descending into a rant. For instance, here’s the process applied to someone the like of whom NZ has (thankfully) never seen… the BTK (Bind, Torture Kill) killer.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Why the ad hominem attacks, bruv and co.? All I have done is express my opinion, based on my experience working as a criminal lawyer. I have expressed a view, admittedly contrary to yours, based on my experience and for which I have given reasons and examples for those reasons. How does that make me an idiot, arrogant or previous?
I am a right wing (somewhat) libertarian who supports low taxes, small government and who opposes the populist, authoritarian agenda of the former government and present (in)Justice minister. Mostly ideas that many here agree with. Or does that make me only selectively an idiot etc etc?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Rex:
I can see your point that public displays of grief have an impact on many people. While as you say it would have the benefit of deterring some people from crime. But at what costs? Do we really want to return to medieval forms of punishment? The prospect of being hung, drawn and quartered probably deterred quite a few potential traitors during the reign of Henry VIII. But we just don’t impose barbarric punishments any more.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Rex, when I use the word ‘abuse’ I am only referring to the situation envisaged by DPF above. As you might take from the second part of my comment at 1.23pm above, I have no issue with victim impact statements per se.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 2:54 pm
For reasons which will be obvious, I have refrained from commenting on this post until others have done so, and I have had a chance to digest the comments, many of them very thoughtful.
I am in the somewhat unique position of having been on the receiving end of victim impact statements as a defendant, and having had a private members bill in the ballot which would have gone a little further than Power is proposing.
Firstly, although many here – and even more in the wider community – will not realise it, victim impact statements (VIP) will have little if any effect on the sentencing Judge, who will have decided what he or she is going to hand down well before the day of sentencing. The VIP is therefore first and foremost a chance – probably the only chance – victims get to say their piece to the criminal who has caused them such pain.
I have no idea who “FE Smith” is, and find it a bit dissappointing that he or she cant make their comments under their real name, as other members of the profession such as Graeme Edgeler and I do. But hiding behind pseudonyms seems to be de rigeur with the interweb. “Smith” does not sound like Peter Williams or Bott, and if his self description is accurate, he is certainly not your standard criminal apologist.
All of that said, I say “why?” to those think victims should be prevented from doing what all I have ever spoken to say is a cathartic and “empowering” – there’s a good leftie word – experience. Some say the courtroom is a sacred place which should not be sullied by emotion. Again, my response is “why not?” Not many years ago the passing of legislation was greeted by observers in parliament by silence – now it is acceptable for Maori to give lenghty waiata and speeches in Maori following the passage of legislation they approve of. If that is acceptable, why should a courtroom be any more solemn and scared than the highest court in the land?
As for how the victims feel – as Smith and others have noted, VIP’s read aloud by victims themselves occur in a tiny minority of cases. But as I can personally attest, if one is of a suitable mindset, even a letter written in the spidery hand of an elderly lady handed to the prisoner to read can have a devasting effect. If the prisoner is upset I say “so what?” The guilty man in the dock – which is what he is by the time a VIP is made – has, by his actions, put himself there. If he is a murderer, he should thank his lucky stars that an emotional VIP is the closest to a lynch mob he is likely to come.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Well said David Garrett. What a shame there are not more like you in Parliament.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:16 pm
The first setence in the last para. of my post should have read: “As for how the prisoners feel – as Smith …”
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:21 pm
David, I choose to remain anonymous because I can. Not an uncommon feature over the years, with much of the great works of the pamphlet era being undertaken anonymously. I don’t say I am in the same league as the ‘radicals’, but I have some similar considerations in remaining largely anonymous. That said, there are some who know who I am and I am content to let that regulate what I say. I would just point out that I am not the only lawyer commenting on this blog with the benefit of anonymity. The rules allow me to and i don’t see why i should be criticised for doing so.
I am certainly not a criminal apologist. I do this job because I see it as being vital in a free and democratic society. Defence lawyers often been the only people standing between an authoritarian state and the general public. That may not involve political risks as it used to, but I do see the modern state as wanting to limit hard won rights in order to make it easier to obtain convictions.
The theory of the courts as agents of crime control, rather than justice, is one I find abhorrent. I don’t defend crime, I defend people and it is that which regulates my views. I just happen to see accused persons, convicted prisoners as people along with victims. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don’t, but you make well reasoned arguments and that is what matters.
However, I do hope you are wrong about the judges deciding sentence days on advance, as it would seem to makeup pleas in mitigation moot. I know some judges do, but I hope at least some make their mind up after the plea is presented! With regards the effect on sentence, I agree that it has mo real effect. But I don’t believe that means it should become a free for all. Indeed, under what Power is proposing, I believe that Gil Elliott’s VI statement would still have been edited.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:35 pm
David, with regard the amendment to the last paragraph of your first comment, I agree that a victim impact statement can have a real effect on the prisoner at sentence, hence my having no issue with the law as it currently stands. I would posit, however, that allowing abuse to be hurled at the prisoner may in fact have the opposite effect, although possibly being cathartic for the hurler.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
F E Smith, the scenario you put forward at 1:50pm seems similar to the Emery case. You have a person who is the victim of a lesser crime reacting by killing the offender. Thus the tables are turned so the offender and victim swap roles.
In such a situation it doesn’t seem right to me that the families of the manslaughter victim should be able to abuse the accused in court.
I know in the Emery case it was only graffiti, but it is still a crime and the sad fact is the lad would still be alive today if he hadn’t broken the law. Some people do feel intimidated and violated when the place where they live is defaced in such a way. Of course, they usually don’t kill the tagger – but that’s a different argument.
Perhaps the rules should state that the right of a victim’s family to make a statement is lost if the victim was killed/injured as a result of their own unlawful behavior?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
FE Smith: thank you for that reasoned response. If you feel justified in giving us your views anonymously, then so be it; as you say, it is allowed, and most do so. I merely note that 20 years ago, one by one, newspapers decided that if “Ratepayer” or “Mother of Inglewood” wished to share their views with the rest of us, the readers should know who they were. Since I am clearly outnumbered on this issue, I will leave it there.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean about Judges deciding sentence well before sentencing day. I refer only to serious criminal offences, particularly high profile ones. I dont think anyone in the profession would believe the sentence Justice Potter passed on Weatherston would have differed regardless of whether Gill Elliot had or had not made his statement, or if his lawyer had been the greatest pracititioner the common law world has ever seen, and Richard Burton delivered the plea in mitigation on his or her behalf.
But being able to make the statement – and being censured in doing so – made a huge difference to Mr and Mrs Elliot. As for
Vote:Weatherston and Chaston and Bell and the others an American executioner called “God’s mistakes”, unlike some others here, I agree absolutely that they are entitled to a fair and properly conducted trial. Having received it, I dont give a rats if their feelings are hurt, and no sensible person should – in my opinion.
April 21st, 2011 at 3:59 pm
snowy (35) Says:
April 21st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
F E Smith, the scenario you put forward at 1:50pm seems similar to the Emery case. You have a person who is the victim of a lesser crime reacting by killing the offender. Thus the tables are turned so the offender and victim swap roles.
In such a situation it doesn’t seem right to me that the families of the manslaughter victim should be able to abuse the accused in court.
I know in the Emery case it was only graffiti, but it is still a crime and the sad fact is the lad would still be alive today if he hadn’t broken the law.
No, he would still be alive if Emery hadn’t taken to him with a knife. He is not the only youth to graffiti, the others also broke the law and were not stabbed to death.
I have looked at the penalties for grafiti and note that being stabbed to death is not one of them, hence the reason why Emery was rightly charged and rightly convicted.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:02 pm
david (1,785) Says:
April 21st, 2011 at 1:52 pm
One of the problems sems to be the definition of “victim” and I am not entirely sure that affected family saying their piece achieves a hell of a lot except to make the family members feel better. Is that really a function of the court system.?
Yes, I fully agree with this.
How do we define the victim(s)?
In a way, whenever a crime is committed we are all victims as the crime is committed against the rules we have agreed upon. The murder of one is an impact on the entire community and an assault on the way we believe we should live in harmony.
It is not, in my opinion, the job of the courts to provide a sweetener for victims. The sole role of the courts must be to determine the truth and the punishment. Anything else is a sideshow.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Emery defended himself from a criminal who was threatening him. Cameron could have run away but came back to try and staunch Emery out…in the struggle he got what he deserved.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:25 pm
FE Smith seems very concerned about the criminals rights – of course they have rights, but the pendulum is too far in their favour.
So much wrong with our justice system, and the lawyers are part of the problem.
I reckon we are much too light on sentencing in this country.
Also, I think criminal histories should be revealed to juries. Manslaughter is also often used when murder is more appropriate.I don’t care if you intended to kill someone or not, if you purposefully injure another person in a way that is commonly known to kill then it should always be murder regardless of your intent.
Anyway, just my opinions, many will disagree.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
And what mechanism would you suggest “Jack” for assisting the victims with their pain – in the one off and unique way confronting the offender in court can? State funded psychotherapy? Should they perhaps have to travel to the prison to engage in “restorative justice” when the prisoner realises parole time isnt far away, and perhaps it would be good idea to have a few such sessions on his record? (Or even, for that matter, if the prisoner’s intentions are entirely genuine. Why should the victims have to put themselves out in any way to accomodate his needs or desires?)
How do you define victims? Sadly there is never any difficulty identifying them…
Yo’ve told us you are against the courts “provid[ing] a sweetener for victims”, but you havent told us what you would suggest instead. Do tell.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Thank you Jack – I was tempted to say that allowing VIP’s is little more than a refined way of including “5 minutes behind the courthouse with the victim’s family” into a 20 year sentence. Many of the people arguing for their use and extension would doubtless argue also that prisons are not for punishment otherwise we would have chain gangs. There are some real dichotomies in our attitude towards those who break society’s rules of behavior.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
MNIJ
You missed my point.
I wasn’t arguing over whether Emery should or should not have been convicted and imprisoned. Of course killing someone over graffiti is wrong, but I would argue that the situation where someone becomes a victim as a result of their own offending differs from that where the victim has not broken the law.
This should be taken into account by the courts when deciding whether to allow victims’ families to make VI statements.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 5:22 pm
My 2c. Don’t know sweet piss all about the legal profession or victim statements, don’t really want to. But I did notice those on tv the other night, when reading their original statements, parts of these statements criticized the justice system and these statements had also been censored. Seems the legal eagles and their institutions are not only worried about what is said to the victim but what may be seen as questioning or challenging of our justice system and it’s decisions. Which in my eyes isn’t a good look.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
FE smith – “I have expressed a view, admittedly contrary to yours,”
Contrary to planet Earth, more like it.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 6:06 pm
David Garrett says:
How typical of you to imply that no criminal ever feels genuine remorse and might want to “make it right” – to the extent that it’s possible to do so – with his or her victims. One case I’m handling at present is that of a young woman who, once she’d sobered up from the drug-induced frenzy that led her to offend, wrote a letter of heartfelt apology to her victim so obviously honest that the sentencing judge – the toughest in WA, a former DPP – felt moved to comment on it.
Now, some years on, the victim has decided to claim compensation and on the form the offender is marked as “unknown”. That means the police just threw the letters away rather than pass them on. The offender is distraught, and in fact it’s set back her rehabilitation because she feels that owning up and apologising is an important part of the process she must go through.
In my experience many criminals share a similar desire. Not all of them, of course. But almost all the first time offenders as well as those who have offended multiple times but have finally reached the point where they’re prepared to accept they’re a screwup.
Granted you allow for the possibility of genuine remorse on your next sentence, but then go on to portray the process as though it were about doing the criminal a favour. It’s not, it’s about helping both victim and offender get past the offence. As for the practicalities, we’re collecting $50 off everyone convicted, put that into a taxi fare to and from the prison. Or fund video links (common practice for prisons in Australia, given the distances).
Or they could always borrow the Prime Ministerial helicopter, provided there’s not an urgent sporting event to attend, and use that to provide a much-needed service to victims. As we’ve seen, if someone wants to get somewhere keenly enough, the government will provide. Surely a crime victim is as deserving as the PM?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Rex: I believe that’s called threadjacking isnt it?
This debate is about Victim Impact Statements and what should be allowed in them…not John Key’s use of helicopters…
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 6:45 pm
if that was all Rex wrote, then yes, that would be threadjack.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 6:59 pm
The time for the VIS to be read to the victim is after sentence is passed, as said above they very rarely (never I believe) have any impact on the actual sentence. If this is done after sentence then the Court trail is complete and then the victim (family ?) can have their say and it is then personal .
There is however no place for just abusing the offender, proves nothing anyway, this person has killed your daughter, calling him an arsehole is going to prove what ?.
There is a place for the statement to be properly written however , when they first started and I was still in the police we used to write them paraphrase fashion and attempted to get them reasonably articulate but by the time I had left they had to be written by the victim and were an utter shambles a lot of the time and did not serve any purpose at all.
You do get the odd Judge refer to the statement ( I believe they are still supplied to the Judge prior to being read out )but its more lip service to the victim rather than putting any more lead in the sentence.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Pauleastbay @ 6.59pm
In your experience did the reading of a VIS ever make the offender think about the crime they committed or were they just treated as part of the background noise in the courtroom? If the judge effectively ignores them & they have no effect on the offender than the victims may as well save their breath.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 7:49 pm
victims may as well save their breath……………..
Yep basically, they were brought in to give victims more ” say” in the process, that’s all. A cuddle basically and I don’t mean to be smartarsed , incluseivity (sic) more than a cuddle, but that’s what it is.
Our legal system (The English) was once the harshest in the world , it populated large portions of Canada and Australia and NZ with deportations. It has never been victim focused.
The Judge doesn’t need a VIS from a wife to know her world is shattered when her husband is killed, some Judges might be too liberal for many but being liberal doesn’t make you a moron ( some commentators are an exception though)
I have never seen or heard any defendants say in Court, “” Your VIS has made me realise what a dreadful thing I did” but then that’s not to say the VIS doesn’t sink in 3 years down the track,, that’s why reading the VIS out after sentencing or even later at a parole hearing to the defendant is a reasonable idea.
Its a Victim Impact Statement not a Victim Sentencing Statement the victim is still impacted regardless of the sentence the defendant receives.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Well said, Paul.
Side show Bob, in what way is criticism of the justice system relevant in a victim impact statement? Any such criticism can easily be made to the media after the event, but the law, as passed by politicians, not lawyers, doesn’t allow for it currently.
And, everybody, please don’t over estimate the influence criminal lawyers have over the justice system. We are a very small, and shrinking, part of the legal profession and the politicians, Law Commission and MoJ ceased to care (unless you are one of their pet Wellington lawyers) a long time ago. Certainly Simon Power doesn’t care one little bit what we think.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Pauleastbay @ 7.49am
Thanks for your perspective.
I remember once reading that English law was about protection of rights & property so it is not surprising that the victim’s position is not of paramount importance. Still the system, although creaky, seems to do most of what it has to.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Lupo and FE Smith et al,
Vote:Comments that “parents are not victims” is total and utter bullsh*t. It is a subject I can talk on with some knowledge. My brother was murdered by 3 thugs in 1987, in a fairly high profile case. It damn near killed my parents and grandfather with the stress, and shattered their lives. Their marriage was strong and survived, many others haven’t. Writing my VIS in our case was the hardest thing I ever did. Although we never had the option of reading it out.
I don’t think the VIS made much difference, the system is soft and broken,It didn’t make much difference, one of them (described as a classic psychopath) served an extra 3 years, as he was inside for another murder committed afterwards at the time of sentencing. All 3 are out – I hope you all feel safe…
Read “Shattered Dreams” by Bill Obrien. If you want more info, let me know.
April 21st, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Pauleast: Thanks for that insight, and for what it’s worth I agree with what you’ve said.
The fact that our system was NOT victim focused is the whole point of course of the changes over the last 15 years or so. This fiction – or philosophical construct – that the wrong has been done to the community and not to an individual, and therefore the victim’s needs or the impact on them doesnt matter, was well overdue for change.
Someone earlier said that VIS’s were the modern equivalent of hurling rotten fruit at the prisoner. Maybe that’s true, and is that so bad? To stretch the analogy, neither being hit in the face with rotten fruit nor words can kill someone.
And that leads to the point I do disagree with you on Paul. Victims tell me that “calling the offender an arsehole” – to the extent that that has hitherto been allowed – does indeed make them feel just a little better. God forbid that I am ever in that situation, but if some arsehole killed or hurt one of my loved ones I would want to berate them until I was hoarse.
As part of the social contract we are all obliged to be a party to, we give up the right to personally extract retribution or inflict punishment. In my view that ought not to extend to being precluded from saying what you feel to the offender who has wrong you – wronged YOU and not just the community.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 8:42 pm
GJM: Your surname must be Merryweather…(I used material in “Shattered Dreams” for my book on capital punishment 10 years ago.) If ever there was an illustration of why our system had to change it is your brother’s case. The fact that the perpetrator who had killed before is now out and walking around is truly terrifying. As you know only too well, he was a psychopath then, he is still one now, and he will be until the day he dies.
As inadequate as it is, I send my warm wishes to you and your family members. Getting mongrels like your brother’s killer off the streets for as long as possible is what lies behind “three strikes”, and why I went to parliament.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Getting mongrels like your brother’s killer off the streets for as long as possible is what lies behind “three strikes”, and why I went to parliament.
And thanks for that David your achievement will I guarantee prove more far-reaching in terms of rubber on the road, than some (majority?) people’s achievements even after twenty or more years in that place.
I wish we had our NZ-styled up and running broken windows as well, cause correct me if I’m wrong but that is the other end of the key. Broken windows stops them when they’re young, three-strikes stops them when it’s become all too late for anything but.
Would be interesting to get your insight.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 9:25 pm
What I won’t do, however, is support my rights in the criminal justice process to be restricted or abolished, or the process to be made into a joke, just to allow victims to make vituperative comments.
Why not, FE?
What’s wrong with vituperative comments in the context of a sentencing hearing? Isn’t this the very place in which to drive home to the convicted the seriousness of his offence and if that gets emotional, so what?
Why should justice not accommodate that very human need after the guilty decision has been previously made in a different session with appropriate decorum?
I’m not suggesting we should allow shouting, but why not raw emotion?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Reid: you’re absolutely right; in fact the evidence seems to be that as a single factor, zero tolerance is even more effective than three strikes -but at a much greater cost (more policemen on the street more often). At the time my political career suddenly ended, I had a study trip to New York (the home of zero tolerance) arranged for early November 2010. Had that happened, a NZ version of zero tolerance adapted from the NY template – much like we adapted 3S from California’s version – would have been ACT’s law and order policy at this election. It wasnt to be, but hopefully some politician in the future will run with it.
Incidentally, NY State has seen the greatest reduction in crime in the US since the peak in the early 1990′s. While everyone knows NY is the home of zero tolerance, what is less known is that they also have “sentence enhancement”, although not three strikes per se.
As you suggest, it is the two pronged approach – both policing and sentencing – that has the greatest effect.
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
As you suggest, it is the two pronged approach – both policing and sentencing – that has the greatest effect.
Thanks David. It’s interesting those who work in the field, don’t advocate for that.
Police do, Judges not so much. Reluctantly. Stacked bench anyone?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 10:35 pm
more policemen on the street more often
David that is fatal for us isn’t it, a thinly populated geographically separated country. Even in Auckland you couldn’t do it – beat cops don’t work there.
The only way you could do it is saturate the problem burbs like Otara, Otahuhu, Papatoetoe et al.
You just couldn’t sell that to the politically correct electorate could you.
Targeting entire burbs would give the lefties unlimited ammo.
So how could you tackle that?
Vote:April 21st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Reid, judges aren’t supposed to advocate things. They are supposed to sit removed from the political process, applying the law as it stands in cases brought before them by an unconnected third party (i.e. the police. That is all part of the independent judiciary thingy. This is not the USA.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 12:01 am
Reid, judges aren’t supposed to advocate things
FE IMO the rights of the defendant extend up to the moment of conviction then if convicted are not extinguished but diminished in favour of the victim(s). Those people now should be able to assume the upper hand after months often years of “the system” having the upper hand.
The judge of course decides the sentence et al. Those people however should be given some opportunity beyond what they have now to express their outrage if they wish to, at the person who did it to them.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 1:14 am
“Emery defended himself from a criminal who was threatening him. Cameron could have run away but came back to try and staunch Emery out…in the struggle he got what he deserved.”
He got what he deserved? Twat.
Vote:Didn’t Cameron get stabbed in the back, while he was running away? Have you got a citation for when he was threatening the man who ran after him with the knife?
April 22nd, 2011 at 3:02 am
He was stabbed in the chest
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 11:21 am
An arsehole and a bullying thug, Emery did less than a year for chasing a 15 year old 360 metres down the road and stabbing him to death.
I wonder what sort of moral compass people have when they think that it’s acceptable that the punishment for snuffing out of the life of a fifteen year old brown boy is a year in prison.
Others had different opinions. Grumpy, reclusive. Some who grew up in the neighbourhood said Emery would grumble, shoo them away for noisy play or for picking fruit from his loquat tree. But he’d never confront them if an adult was present.
“The bully behind the curtains,” was one person’s summation.
A neighbour who did not wish to be named said Emery was “a bully” who had changed life for everyone in the neighbourhood.
“He’s a cold, calculated bugger. He went down there with the knife and should be done for murder,” the neighbour said. “That’s all he’s been doing for years, bullying all the kids.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 11:25 am
This freedom of expression now occurring and thankfully moderated by the judge, is vitally important for the welfare of the victim who may feel marginalised during the process and unable to express their feelings and how they feel.
Vote:As David posted earlier, this is the only opportunity the victims have to confront the offender and express their feelings, their grief, their anger, their pain. This in my opinion is vital to the welfare of the victim who has to deal with the consequences of the offenders actions and I am totally in favour of this continuing.
April 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
F.E Smith . In one statement parts were taken out because they questioned the parole board and in another statement the judge was criticized for granting bail. This was not allow in victim statements. No doubt these sort of decisions could have lead to someone walking the streets that should have being behind bars, surely if someone is attacked and the justice system had not done it’s job like it should have, don’t they to share part of the blame ?. And wouldn’t it be right for the victim to state this in court?
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Bob; No, it would not be appropriate to raise them in court during a victim impact statement. And the form they are given to complete is clear as to what they can speak about. Neither the parole board nor the judge’s bail decision were in any way relevant to the victim impact statement. If the victim wished to raise them in the media, or a letter to the Minister, or even a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner then there would be no problem, but the VI statement was not the place to do it.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I agree with victims having freedom with regard to their impact statements. but I think we need to be cautious about following the victims views too closely when it comes to sentencing. This is not because I fear judges being too hard, but rather it will mean that crims with forgiving victims may get off too lightly, putting the rest of us at risk. You are also putting putting a burden on the victims if they know that the sentence is highly dependant on what they say.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
I think we need to be cautious about following the victims views too closely when it comes to sentencing.
We should ignore them completely in sentencing calculation, MOT. I’m not sure anyone is suggesting otherwise. It’s the ability to express ones loss in an unrestricted way that needs to be reviewed.
One understands the whole image of the impartial rational and objective always needs to be upheld not least because society depends on respect in and for, the law. One understands this.
However surely if the system turns its mind toward it there is some way to preserve that and still, let victims spill their guts at the bastard who caused them such pain. And if it can’t bring itself to think of a way to do that, I suggest we ask them to do it anyway, cause IMO it’s not orbital re-entry calculations, is it.
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
So we can all agree that Weatherston is a remorseless prick with who deserves all that is coming to him but do we really want to make laws for the extremes? And for that matter isn’t the system meant to be better than the offender?
As FES noted above is it really appropriate that a victim, of say, careless driving causing injury, gets an open slather opportunity to slag off the defendant for what is, essentially, a mistake? Will defence counsel, who then point out, that the victim contributed to their own demise, then face calls for restraint? (An example – careless causing death – carelessness over correcting after crossing centre line and hitting shingle – all over – horrible situation for all concerned. Family want to read VI statements with “I hate you” etc in it. Should defence then point out that victim had chosen not to wear seatbelt, had chosen to get pissed, had chosen to climb around the car etc? Doesn’t seem helpful to anyone really).
Vote:April 22nd, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Thanks F.E Smith, as I said I no nothing about the justice system and perhaps should not comment, it just seem strange to me that so much is censored or not to be said. But there are reasons for most things, usually good. I’ll stick to milking cows, their victim impact statements usually hit you on the head.
Vote: