What About the Victims?

Sandel’s article on victim testimony raises some interesting questions about the role of the victim in the criminal justice process. Bill Clinton in the early 90’s insisted that victims should be at the forefront of the trial, rather than “on the outside looking in.” Those who support retributive justice argue that a victim’s voice in the courtroom simply sheds light on the magnitude of the crime. Others feel that highly emotional testimony will only divert attention away from factual evidence and logical thinking.

I support the idea of retributive justice. Providing a jury with facts and statistics does not always bring the moral issues of a crime to the surface. I feel the jury, as well as the rest of the court, should know just how the particular crime impacted others’ lives. In almost all cases of capital punishment, the victim is not there to testify. Thus, I feel it is important that those who were closest to that person speak out on their behalf. I really don’t think justice can be served until the victim has some sort of voice. If the defendant is given the right to speak and defend themselves, why shouldn’t the victim be able to tell their side of the story? The jury should rely on evidence, but they should also consider the effects of the crime on the victims and their families before sentencing.