This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/magazine-12277696
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Aristotle on modern ethical dilemmas | Aristotle on modern ethical dilemmas |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| If someone does you wrong, should you have a say in their punishment? Great thinkers have mulled such questions for centuries, says philosopher Mark Vernon in the Magazine's series on modern ethics. | If someone does you wrong, should you have a say in their punishment? Great thinkers have mulled such questions for centuries, says philosopher Mark Vernon in the Magazine's series on modern ethics. |
| Should victims have a say in sentencing criminals? That partly depends upon what you mean by "have a say". | Should victims have a say in sentencing criminals? That partly depends upon what you mean by "have a say". |
| A weak form of involvement would have a judge listen to a statement from victims, but ensure the judge alone does the sentencing. | |
| A slightly stronger form would be when the impact on victims is considered as part of assessing the moral seriousness of the crime. The strongest form would be when victims have a direct say in the type of sentence. | A slightly stronger form would be when the impact on victims is considered as part of assessing the moral seriousness of the crime. The strongest form would be when victims have a direct say in the type of sentence. |
| So which is the more just? | So which is the more just? |
| A utilitarian approach, which seeks people's greatest happiness and is associated with the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, can provide one reason why victims should, in part, play judge. It can be called the therapeutic argument. | A utilitarian approach, which seeks people's greatest happiness and is associated with the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, can provide one reason why victims should, in part, play judge. It can be called the therapeutic argument. |
| Victim sentencing could serve as an outlet for their rage, pain and desire for justice. It promises closure by offering catharsis, thereby helping to restore the victim's happiness, or at least helping to lessen their pain. | Victim sentencing could serve as an outlet for their rage, pain and desire for justice. It promises closure by offering catharsis, thereby helping to restore the victim's happiness, or at least helping to lessen their pain. |
| However, this might backfire. | However, this might backfire. |
| Given the choice, many victims might desire longer sentences than the judiciary would allow. When that desire is not satisfied, their anguish might be exacerbated. The therapeutic argument has also been called the "Oprahisation" of sentencing. | Given the choice, many victims might desire longer sentences than the judiciary would allow. When that desire is not satisfied, their anguish might be exacerbated. The therapeutic argument has also been called the "Oprahisation" of sentencing. |
| This is because victim impact statements may include attacks on the defendant. There is a danger, then, that the court room comes to resemble a talk show, particularly if the trial is televised. This may increase general happiness, though not by helping victims, but by entertaining viewers. | This is because victim impact statements may include attacks on the defendant. There is a danger, then, that the court room comes to resemble a talk show, particularly if the trial is televised. This may increase general happiness, though not by helping victims, but by entertaining viewers. |
| The second, Kantian approach emphasises reason and rights. | The second, Kantian approach emphasises reason and rights. |
| It stresses the law should be rational, and that includes keeping careful tabs on the irrational feelings that are inevitably present during legal proceedings. This would be harder to do, the more the voice of victims is heard. | It stresses the law should be rational, and that includes keeping careful tabs on the irrational feelings that are inevitably present during legal proceedings. This would be harder to do, the more the voice of victims is heard. |
| More seriously still, strong forms of victim sentencing would reflect the capabilities of the victim. A victim who could powerfully express their feelings might win a longer sentence. That would be irrational because it would suggest that a crime is more serious if the victim is more articulate. | More seriously still, strong forms of victim sentencing would reflect the capabilities of the victim. A victim who could powerfully express their feelings might win a longer sentence. That would be irrational because it would suggest that a crime is more serious if the victim is more articulate. |
| That said, impact statements may allow victims to feel the law is serving their needs. As is sometimes said, victims have rights too. | That said, impact statements may allow victims to feel the law is serving their needs. As is sometimes said, victims have rights too. |
| And impact statements may help a judge to understand the moral seriousness of a crime. The law already discriminates between different kinds of murder, for example. Why shouldn't it also discriminate between the effects of different murders? | And impact statements may help a judge to understand the moral seriousness of a crime. The law already discriminates between different kinds of murder, for example. Why shouldn't it also discriminate between the effects of different murders? |
| Taking considerations of moral seriousness into account would fit within a third approach, the one that stresses the common good and virtue and is associated with Aristotle. | Taking considerations of moral seriousness into account would fit within a third approach, the one that stresses the common good and virtue and is associated with Aristotle. |
| Understanding the moral seriousness of a crime is important because it helps the criminal to take responsibility for what they've done. Victim feelings are also a crucial component in so-called restorative justice, in which the criminal is confronted with their crime, perhaps by meeting the victim. | Understanding the moral seriousness of a crime is important because it helps the criminal to take responsibility for what they've done. Victim feelings are also a crucial component in so-called restorative justice, in which the criminal is confronted with their crime, perhaps by meeting the victim. |
| That said, a virtue ethics approach would be concerned with the moral state of the victim too. Victims may need to forgive those who have wronged them, in order that they might flourish in the future. An impersonal legal system, that does not allow victims a say, might actually help with that, as it ensures objectivity. | That said, a virtue ethics approach would be concerned with the moral state of the victim too. Victims may need to forgive those who have wronged them, in order that they might flourish in the future. An impersonal legal system, that does not allow victims a say, might actually help with that, as it ensures objectivity. |
| Mark Vernon, the author of Philosophy For The Curious and Ethics For The Curious, will tackle more modern dilemmas throughout the week. Tomorrow, should companies pay to pollute. | Mark Vernon, the author of Philosophy For The Curious and Ethics For The Curious, will tackle more modern dilemmas throughout the week. Tomorrow, should companies pay to pollute. |
| Send your comments using the form below - we'll publish a selection | Send your comments using the form below - we'll publish a selection |
| In criminal law, the 'victim' is not the individual who may have been assaulted or robbed. It is society as a whole as it is the laws of society that have been breached. This is why there are magistrates who are lay members of society acting as representatives of the people, or juries, who are individuals from a cross section of society. THEY decide what justice should be handed out to the individual who has breached the criminal law. The 'victim' who has actually been assaulted, robbed etc. has their own avenue for recourse - this is the civil law. It is correct and apt that there is this separation. | |
| Allan Moore, Paisley, Scotland | |
| The legal system is personal, even if impersonal by definition or design. Judges are human, so are members of prosecution and defence. Judge and jury can and are swayed by arguments of the defence or prosecution, even if correctly instructed, because of their own experiences, their common and personal history, their inner fears and prejudices. Introducing victims into this subjective system at least redresses the balance towards showing to the judge and jury the consequences, at the same time stripping the perpetrator of the comfort of his or her crime being "abstract" or disconnected with reality. | |
| Monika, London | |
| And what happens when the criminal's friends and family realise that the victim has sway over any sentencing? Intimidation and threats spring to mind. Justice should be done, and shown to be done, via the impartiality of the law with strong sentences for vicious crimes regardless of whether the victim bounced back from their ordeal or still lives in abject terror. | |
| D Randell, Norwich, UK | |
| When victims decide on punishment, it is called "retribution" and not justice. We can see in the world's war zones where that leads. The point of the "punishment" from a social point of view is actually rehabilitation, not vengeance. | |
| John McCormick, Northampton | |
| To be fair, sentencing must be objective and victims' views cannot be taken into account, otherwise the same crime committed against two victims of differing outlook could result in two different sentences. How is "moral seriousness" defined? Surely it would be rational to sentence according to intent. Therefore there would be no difference between murder and attempted murder, the intent being the same. And someone who caused death by accident might be, in terms of intent, innocent. | |
| Rob C, Northwich, UK | |
| There is nothing wrong with the victim airing their views to their culprit, but the legal system will have taken victim's suffering into account when choosing an appropriate punishment. I don't believe society should go the way of revenge punishments. | |
| Ghanashyam Master, London | |
| My husband was involved in an accident which left him with the loss of one leg, a severely damaged leg and mobility issues. He was allowed to submit a victim impact statement which the judge read, but in my mind this has never been enough. The directors of the company and the skipper have never shown any remorse, and are leading perfectly normal lives, whilst we struggle on. The victims and their families should be allowed to have some say for consideration on sentencing. | |
| Maria, Leics | |
| How a crime impacts on its victim shouldn't necessarily influence the punishment given. Some victim's will be guided by anger/sorrow whilst others may show empathy or even indifference. The state should draw a line and set standards, which apply to all citizens, as when setting out laws in the first place. This should create a greater sense of moral unity and represent equal justice for every individual. | |
| Tom Wood, Cardiff |