Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Society is largely characterized by all types of crimes committed on various victims, who in one way or the other become direct sufferers of these criminal acts. The nature, extent, and level of impact may vary in accordance to each victim, but the denominator in all these criminal activities is that they heavily affect the victim (sufferer). Legal trial constitutes an avenue where both victims and society expect some form of justice to be exercised in ensuring genuine punishment is executed on the individual deemed to carry responsibility of the crime (Neubauer and Fradella, 2010). As a result, the legal and human rights fraternity is bombarded with legal, moral, and even ethical dilemmas as whether victims should be part of sentencing phase in a criminal trial.
Given that there is growing emphasis and even legalization of victim participation in criminal trial through submission of victim impact statements, it is prudent to state that emotion narration on the part of victim should not supersede reason and intellect in criminal judgment. There is great fear that investing much power in victims to participate in sentence process without similar powers being provided to defendants’ is risky and to some extent, may promote and compromise justice. As a result, there is likelihood of defendants’ rights being trampled upon, and this very aspect diminishes the legal intent for fair trial, while the larger prosecutorial system deviates from its role of benefiting all in the society.
Main body
Victims’ participation in prosecutorial process in major cases has expanded in the past, and this can be witnessed in the increasing overload of criminal justice system, specifically with emergence of victim-oriented procedures and mechanisms (Cassel and Bernstein, 2007). Therefore, there is no doubt that victim participation in trial has been recognized, and this should only remain so only to the extent that both the rights of victims and defendants are observed without intention or aspiration to subdue any one of them. More so, continued empowerment of victims to participate in sentencing process as evidenced from views and observations of many of judges and attorneys is that, it erodes and restricts the ability to try cases and conduct trials in accordance with judges training and expertise (Cassel and Bernstein, 2007). At the same time, increased attention and focus on victims’ allocution may in the long run infringe on defendants’ rights for a fair trial, as the aspect of emotion may become part of legal recognition (Cassel and Bernstein, 2007).
There are many reasons as to why the above position on the contrary of victims’ participation in sentencing process is adopted. First, prosecutorial evidence into the sentencing process should always be governed by reason and not emotion (Neubauer and Fradella, 2010). Given the nature and gravity of some victim impact evidence, there is great likelihood of ‘everyone’ including judges and attorneys being swayed by human essence of emotion, which may ultimately find its way into defendant’s judgment (Gaines and Miller, 2011). As a result, when victims in the prosecutorial process are given much power and attention, they may interject and become dangerous to the process and ultimate sentencing process (Gaines and Miller, 2011). This will deny the defendant’s free and fair trial, which any justice system should achieve.
Victims’ participation in sentencing process is deemed inappropriate, especially if one was to revisit and analyze facts based on the moral ethical school of thought. In most judicial cases, victims’ impact evidence becomes necessary in cases whose ultimate decision fulcrums on the death sentence. In such cases, giving victims opportunity to be part of sentencing process may be viewed as an indirect bestowment of power on the shoulders of victims to execute revenge on the defendants, which in very nature and aspect of human law undermines the principle of government by law (Dubber, 2008). The morality question that needs to be addressed is whether justice can be achieved by victims demanding total elimination of the victims (death sentence), which in one way or the other contravenes the grounds of the case before the judge, to condone execution (Dubber, 2008).
Moreover, participation of victims in sentencing process cannot truly reflect the desire and need for fair trial and respect for the defendant’s rights, as the intent and manifestation of majority of victim impact evidences rests on the desire to revenge, retaliate, and seek retribution. Therefore, a sober ground that captures need for fair justice, and defense based on reason and rule of law is likely to be overtaken by events, emotions, and all elements that characterize victim impact evidence process (Dubber, 2008).
The strength of this position rests on some of the works of previous commissions, which have outlined the need to minimize victims’ participation in sentencing process. For instance, even though victim’s rights have been violated by the accused, it should not appear again that the victim is given another role to trample the rights of accused, since this will constitute indirect revenge thus diluting the essence of justice (Dubber, 2008). On the other hand, the weakness of this position may be subdued by the clauses of American constitution, especially those contained in Eighth Amendment and supported by clauses in Fourteenth Amendments (Dubber, 2008).
Conclusion
Despite this, it is wise to note that powers of victims’ involvement in a case are greatly recognized. In addition, fundamental progress has been achieved to the extent that it is deemed appropriate to both victims and defendants. Any further attempts to extend these powers to sentencing process would greatly compromise the reason, expertise, and knowledge of judges, and this will in turn compromise the essence of human law and need for inclusive justice.
References
Cassel, E., & Bernstein, D. A. (2007). Criminal behavior. NY: Routledge.
Dubber, M. D. (2008). Death penalty: Should victims’ opinions matter when considering the death penalty. Web.
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2011). Criminal justice in action: the core. OH: Cengage Learning.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2010). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. OH: Cengage Learning.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.