Victim's family

[sclcookie]

Of course, I vote "no" being that the victim's family isn't thinking rational in a murder case, especially if the victim was their child and/or there was mutilation, rape, or something to that degree involved.

[Mo-DAWG]

sclcookie said:

Of course, I vote "no" being that the victim's family isn't thinking rational in a murder case, especially if the victim was their child and/or there was mutilation, rape, or something to that degree involved.

i voted NO for the same reasons you have .... it would be a too emotional thing ...
Mo-DAWG

[janet]

Absolutely not! I agree with the reasons cited above.

[littlepeople]

of course not. That would be a bit like linck moob.
Where I come from., when it became independent from the colonials, the people actually burned alive murders and robers in public .They used to put them inside tyres and set light to it. The goverment used to stone people that desagried with their policies as well. Later the goverment banned it. Thank god (term).And when it became a democracy finished with CP too. ( but I think that this was because the Common Wealth doesn't allow it)

[judywaits4u]

As I have said many times, I do not think the victim's family has any role, other than as factual witnesses, in a murder trial. MVSs should also be banned from making these "Victim Impact" statements during the penalty phase of the trial. The only person of relivance in a sentencing hearing is the convicted person and the officials making official reports.

The jury know all the facts about the crime that was committed and there is no point in going over it again at sentencing. The idea of the sentencing hearing is to decide what sentence is appropriate and the obly facts that matter are the questions answered in the guilt phase about the crime, plus the background and previous history of the convict. If two people commit equal crimes and they are also equal, then they should get equal sentences, what does it matter that one is an "Exterminater" and the other a "Tookie".

Love and hugs,
Judy

[capitalistswine]

I vote yes. The murderer exacts power over the victim's family by taking a life. Then, in turn, the state, through the judge exacts power over the victim's family be deciding the murderer's fate. What say does the victim's family have in the decision? Sure, they can speak during sentencing, if the judge allows it, but ya know, it's a state official who MIGHT take your speech into consideration. I myself don't want consideration.

What I say, is the family decides the punishment within the parameters of the law and the sentencing guidelines. This works for both pro and anti.

Say for instance, you are an anti who is an immediate member of the victim's family and the murder is death penalty case. You could sentence the murderer to LWOP and not have the judge only take your speech into consideration, then disregard it and still sentence the murderer to death. You are a victim, not the murderer, not the state, not a pro-death penalty lobby/group.

I also advocate anybody who would sentence a person to death, be the one to push the button. If they really mean it, they will do it.

[burnbabyburndisco]

I vote no.

Punishment should never be determined on an emotional basis.

[capitalistswine]

burnbabyburndisco said:

I vote no.

Punishment should never be determined on an emotional basis.

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

[littlepeople]

capitalistswine said:

burnbabyburndisco said:

I vote no.

Punishment should never be determined on an emotional basis.

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

Maybe they are but there is a concenssus from more than one person and thrue a guided role.
Jee in your world we would be like in me country inside tres burning hot.

I wouldnt like to cross you on your rodeo horse.
I bet you are a vejeterian. a tener if you like

[capitalistswine]

littlepeople said:

capitalistswine said:

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

Maybe they are but there is a concenssus from more than one person and thrue a guided role.
Jee in your world we would be like in me country inside tres burning hot.

I wouldnt like to cross you on your rodeo horse.
I bet you are a vejeterian. a tener if you like

I have no problem with a person crossing my path. Just don't aggress against me.

It's a rather simple concept. One the state cannot understand as the state is simply about power and control over the populace.

As I told the folks at the pro-board, think what you will as I have no reason to lie.

[judywaits4u]

capitalistswine said:

burnbabyburndisco said:

I vote no.

Punishment should never be determined on an emotional basis.

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

Laws passed on an emotional basis are always bad law. Good law is based on solid understanding of the needs of society and the people within it.

That is why CP is always bad law.

[burnbabyburndisco]

capitalistswine said:

burnbabyburndisco said:

I vote no.

Punishment should never be determined on an emotional basis.

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

If you notice, my comment was not about Law, it was about punishment. I do not condone capital punishment be it vengeance or vigilante justice. If punishment were determined by msvs clearly their objectivity would be severely affected by their emotional distress at the loss of their loved one.

Law and punishment are different.

[capitalistswine]

burnbabyburndisco said:

capitalistswine said:

Why? Laws are passed on an emotional basis.

If you notice, my comment was not about Law, it was about punishment. I do not condone capital punishment be it vengeance or vigilante justice. If punishment were determined by msvs clearly their objectivity would be severely affected by their emotional distress at the loss of their loved one.

Law and punishment are different.

How many times has a judge expressed his opinion of a defendent while sentencing the defendent? Think his opinion isn't based on emotion?

[skyloom]

judywaits4u said:

As I have said many times, I do not think the victim's family has any role, other than as factual witnesses, in a murder trial. MVSs should also be banned from making these "Victim Impact" statements during the penalty phase of the trial. The only person of relivance in a sentencing hearing is the convicted person and the officials making official reports.

The jury know all the facts about the crime that was committed and there is no point in going over it again at sentencing. The idea of the sentencing hearing is to decide what sentence is appropriate and the obly facts that matter are the questions answered in the guilt phase about the crime, plus the background and previous history of the convict.

I agree. The victim's family has no place in the trial except possibly as witnesses. The jury has the responsibility of deciding whether the accused is guilty and what will be the appropriate sentence. In the U.S., we've already committed to a bias because people who oppose capital punishment are not allowed to serve on the jury in a capital trial.

[capitalistswine]

skyloom said:

judywaits4u said:

As I have said many times, I do not think the victim's family has any role, other than as factual witnesses, in a murder trial. MVSs should also be banned from making these "Victim Impact" statements during the penalty phase of the trial. The only person of relivance in a sentencing hearing is the convicted person and the officials making official reports.

The jury know all the facts about the crime that was committed and there is no point in going over it again at sentencing. The idea of the sentencing hearing is to decide what sentence is appropriate and the obly facts that matter are the questions answered in the guilt phase about the crime, plus the background and previous history of the convict.

I agree. The victim's family has no place in the trial except possibly as witnesses. The jury has the responsibility of deciding whether the accused is guilty and what will be the appropriate sentence. In the U.S., we've already committed to a bias because people who oppose capital punishment are not allowed to serve on the jury in a capital trial.

In the U.S., we've already committed to a bias because people who oppose capital punishment are not allowed to serve on the jury in a capital trial.

Isn't the opposition of the death penalty a bias in and of itself?