Victims' family members used to execute murderers

[snopes]

Comment: Was it ever true at some point in time in the United States, that
during the execution of a criminal found guilty of murder, a family member
of the victim was allowed to throw the switch on the electric chair (or
some similar role in whatever execution method was being implimented)?

[joshxrt22]

I've never personally heard that, but I don't think it's a bad idea.

[Jay Temple]

I have occasionally suggested that we shouldn't let murder victims' family members testify except in their capacity as witnesses to the crime itself. (That is, "I don't have a daddy any more," is testimony that a jury shouldn't hear; "I saw him shoot my daddy," is.) This is the one way that I would be okay with involving the victim's family.

[Artemis]

Agree with Jay Temple. We're just not evolved enough to let the family of the victims take part in something like that. The law is meant to be reason free from passion, after all...

[Lady Neeva]

Victims family members don't testify during the actual trial unless they actually are witnesses... the "I don't have a daddy anymore" type testimony is only during the sentencing phase as part of the victim impact statements. Or at least thats how I've always understood it to work.

[Jay Temple]

Originally Posted by Lady Neeva

the "I don't have a daddy anymore" type testimony is only during the sentencing phase as part of the victim impact statements. Or at least thats how I've always understood it to work.

And I'm saying that victim impact statements shouldn't happen at all.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

I have occasionally suggested that we shouldn't let murder victims' family members testify except in their capacity as witnesses to the crime itself. (That is, "I don't have a daddy any more," is testimony that a jury shouldn't hear;

They can't; that kind of emotional manipulation won't pass the Rule 403 "prejudicial" test. If I were a defense attorney I'd strike that so fast your head would spin.

[Troberg]

Agree with Jay Temple. We're just not evolved enough to let the family of the victims take part in something like that. The law is meant to be reason free from passion, after all...

One more for that point of view. The law is not a vengeance mechanism, it's a way to protect the people. To do that, it needs to be strictly logical, objective and focused on that objective, from beginning to end.

[Christie]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

And I'm saying that victim impact statements shouldn't happen at all.

Why not? Should the victim's families also not be permitted to speak at parole hearings?

[Jay Temple]

The fact that a murder victim did or did not leave family members behind should not come up at any phase. If that is the sole purpose of a victim impact statement, it should not happen.

[Christie]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

The fact that a murder victim did or did not leave family members behind should not come up at any phase. If that is the sole purpose of a victim impact statement, it should not happen.

Why would that be the sole purpose? There are usually several reasons why family members of a murder victim choose to submit a VIS, I doubt letting the judge know that there are surviving family members is one of them.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

And I'm saying that victim impact statements shouldn't happen at all.

I totally agree. They only sway the judge/jury?? for emotional reasons, rather than relying on points of law and previous precedent.
But they can also go against a victim. Imagine a rape victim who declares that she is not going to let a rapist ruin her life. Her VIS could be taken to mean that the crime was somehow not as serious as first stated as she "has got over it".

[nancyfancypants]

Frankly I don't think there's anything wrong with it since those convicted can present witnesses to their character during sentencing. If the mother of a person who is facing the death penalty can testify to character and plead for the life of her child, why can't the victim's family testify as to how the incident has affected their lives?

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by nancyfancypants

Frankly I don't think there's anything wrong with it since those convicted can present witnesses to their character during sentencing. If the mother of a person who is facing the death penalty can testify to character and plead for the life of her child, why can't the victim's family testify as to how the incident has affected their lives?

Because such a testamony would not be equal to the testamony on the character of the accused/convicted. In other words, this just isn't a very good analogy. Unless the family of the victim knew the accused/convicted at some capacity other than the capacity of the crime that was committed, they are not very good authorities on the character of the accused/convicted. Quite obviously, if their only contact with the accused/convicted was through a senseless crime, then their testimony is going to be biased by material that is not related to the character of the accused/convicted.

If the only purpose of giving the victim's family testamony is to provide them with revenge or closure (both mean the same thing to me), then we are perpetuating the acts created by the accused/convicted. An act of revenge can only cause the desire for revenge to be shifted elsewhere.

The purpose of a victim's statement is to show the gravity of the defendant's actions and give a human perspective to a case. They're a very good emotional outlet for the victims and their families. They never occur during the trial, since that would definitely prejudice a jury. I doubt, however, that they have a huge impact on sentencing, since sentencing is mandatory in many jurisdictions.

You also have to remember that lawyers and judges tend to overlook that human aspect of criminal law...they have to in order to get through the day. Some of the cases I work with every day would break your heart and piss you off because of the failures of the system, but I can't bring it home and dwell on what's going wrong in other people's lives or what has happened to the loved ones of people that I've spoken to throughout the day.

Believe it or not, victims have rights at law in many states concerning criminal matters.

[We'veBeenHad]

Originally Posted by Christie

Why would that be the sole purpose? There are usually several reasons why family members of a murder victim choose to submit a VIS, I doubt letting the judge know that there are surviving family members is one of them.

The ones I've heard of (most memorable to me was the Betty Broderick sentencing, with Linda Kolkena's sister) seem to be to present the victim as a glowing, shining example of humanity, even if they weren't. I guess this is supposed to make the killer look like a monster, as though the act of murder weren't monstrous enough.

I think JayTemple might be right. Is it really necessary that the victims be held up as shining examples of humankind in order to impact the sentencing? It's pure emotion. Then again, maybe they just want their chance to say something, anything - maybe the press is a more appropriate venue for that than a courtroom.

I don't know about the different jurisdictions that various posters live in, but here, I think many of the complaints are not particularly valid. We have individualized sentencing - meaning there is a statutory framework for sentencing and within that framework a judge (only judges sentence in Pa., except for death penalty, which is a jury decision - unless specifically waived by the defendant) can determine whether the sentence deserves to be standard, mitigated or aggravated. Victim impact statements are generally more relevant to the standard or aggravated range sentences. (Because of individualized sentencing, precedent really has no meaning in sentencing.)

By statute, 18 P.S. 11.201(5) specifically, a victim impact statement can address the physical, psychological and/or economic effects of a crime on the victim and/or the victim's family. It is much more than simply "I don't have daddy anymore." (Though that can be part of the psychological aspect.) I think this makes sense as it helps a judge to gauge the totality of the crime, which in virtually every case includes both the criminal and the victim. (Some crimes are kind of "victimless") The VIS is not simply for murders, but is available to the victim of any crime. I think the import of such statements can be seen in hypotheticals - two robberies, $100 taken in each. Must they be treated the same? Is the impact of stealing $100 from a millionaire the same as stealing $100 from the person who must have that money for food? Without the ability to explain what that $100 meant to the person who had to have the money to eat, the court would not have the ability to gauge the impact of the crime. I do not believe that it is just emotion to gauge the two differently. Aggravated assaults - a requirement is the attempt to cause or causing serious bodily injury. Is a permanent cognitive brain deficit the same as broken leg and two broken arms? Both may be considered serious bodily injuires. Should a judge not be able to consider the impact on the family who now has to provide daily care for a brain injured person and what that means to them psychologically and economically?

I do not beleive that the law is passionless. I believe that justice and the law are an all too delicate balance between head and heart. It can be almost impossible to get the balance right. Yet I personally favor the errors of a system that attempts to balance compassion and/or outrage with the rational. A system that is pure emotion is useless, but in my book, one that is coldly formulaic is hardly any better (I think of the French Revolution and the comment - perhaps not true - on Lavoisier - The Revolution has no need for geniuses. Yet revolutionary justice was meant to be rational and logical.) I see nothing inherently wrong with a system that has room for mercy or compassion (emotions) to a defendant and by the same token, there is a place for outrage. Neither mercy nor outrage can be dominant feature, but both can be considerations to fashion an appropriate sentence.

[Jay Temple]

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I do not beleive that the law is passionless.

On the contrary, the law protects us from others' passion for justice.

[greenfrog78]

Is the impact of stealing $100 from a millionaire the same as stealing $100 from the person who must have that money for food? Without the ability to explain what that $100 meant to the person who had to have the money to eat, the court would not have the ability to gauge the impact of the crime.

For some reason this bothers me. First of all I am anything but rich. Now in my view, stealing $100 is stealing $100 whether the person you are stealing from is rich or poor. It is not more of a crime against the poor person and it is not less a crime against the rich. And honestly, IMNSO the "punishment" should be repaying what you took and some kind of probation with public service attached.

In regards to murder, one person is not worth more then another. One person shouldn't get less time if they murdered an asshat with no friends to "testify" as to their loss instead of a well-liked person with lots of people to emotionally speak about their loss.

In regards to the OP, I remember reading about the way murder was dealt with in some chapter of human history. If you murdered someone, your life was forfited to the reletives of your victim. They could kill you if they liked, or made you a slave, or if they were nice and your family was wealthy and was fond of you they could "buy" you back for a price. I've never heard of any part of American history that let the victims familys play such a role.

Well, it is acceptable (not really the right word, but it will have to do for now) to believe and advocate for Passionless law or to believe that one theft of a certain amount of money is the same an any other. I see the VIS statement as one factor of many that can be considered in fashioning a sentence that is fit for the specific defendant who has committed a specific crime with a specific victim. It's not that one life is worth more than another (in Pa. any 1st or 2nd degree murder gets at least a life sentence - so there is no wiggle room there, 3rd degree or manslaughter cases are different), its a recognition that every crime is different and has the potential to have very different impact. The impact is still part of the crime. It has nothing to do with whether any particular defendant committed the crime, but it allows society, through the law and the discretion of the judge, to consider the consequences of the act in setting punishment. It does not allow for unfettered discretion.

The $100 crime may be just the same as every other $100 crime. (An impact statement isn't going to transfer that into a life sentence, it could add a month or two to a sentence. That may be too much variance for some, so be it.) But I do not believe the broken bone is necessarily the same as the brain injury. If aggravated assault is simply aggravated assault, then they are treated the same. I think it is proper to consider the impact of the injury in fashioning the sentence. Like I said, it's not the only consideration, but it can be a consideration.