On the face of things, it may seem reasonable and fair that victims of crime, or their families (if they were murdered), should be able to play a part in the decision-making process leading to the perpetrator’s terms of punishment. I know if anyone hurt my children I’d love to be consulted as to what constitutes a fit punishment. But could this work, in practise? Let’s examine two recent cases of serious crime where the victims’ families were granted the final say in how justice was implemented, with devastating and horrific consequences.

Case One

Source

Just this weekend, in Iran, a twenty-one year-old man was hanged for the murder of a youth – a crime he committed four years ago when he, too, was still just a teenager. It is said he stabbed the victim with a shard of glass, after intervening in a fight occurring between a friend of his and the victim; he was threatened with a knife and retaliated with the broken glass, fatally wounding the other boy. The European Union had attempted to convince the Iranians to cancel the execution but – although it was postponed on two occasions – the Islamic nation eventually went ahead with its threat, after all efforts to convince the victim’s family to pardon the young prisoner failed. Had they done so his life would have been spared.

Image via Wikipedia

I will take a big risk here and bet that A – this family were Muslim, and B – their decision was influenced by their religious beliefs. Whatever the case, they were clearly prejudiced by personal feelings regarding the death of a child, and the execution of this young man obviously went some way in them avenging the loss of their son.

Case Two

Judge Adrian Smith – already notorious for previous inadequate sentencing – was recently condemned for allowing a dangerous child abuser to walk free after finding him guilty of the rape of a seven year-old boy. He did so, astoundingly, because the victim’s father was a good Christian. This religious man claimed he’d had found it in his heart to forgive the twisted individual who’d raped his poor young son, and begged the judge to consider a non-custodial sentence. Within eight days of his release the rapist had struck again, in the same neighbourhood, this time raping a five year-old boy. Since his consequent arrest, he has asked for several other offences against children to be taken into consideration.

(Judge Adrian Smith) Source

Now, forgive me for sounding a a little unforgiving, but I’m NOT a good Christian. I have four sons whose safety is paramount to me and I live in England, not Iran, so should be able to trust in and rely upon the judicial system to lock up all those guilty of serious crime, especially if they present a danger to the public – and regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs.

What in the Devil’s name was this extremely well-educated, very highly-paid, and supposedly sane Judge doing when he even considered releasing this monster onto the streets? How can he possibly defend allowing the religious beliefs of a common man – not versed in the law, but the Bible, possibly completely uneducated, and obviously lacking in sanity – to direct his decision-making in such a serious matter? What right has any one man to forgive this monster on my behalf, or on behalf of all parents living in the UK – or anywhere else?

Besides which, I’ve read many, many accounts of cases where the wishes of victims or their families – to have criminals locked up for periods befitting their violent and hideous crimes – have been completely ignored. Yet bizarrely, the religious beliefs held by the father of the first victim resulted in the life of the second – and those of his direct family – being irreparably damaged forever, while the safety of countless other children was jeopardised.

Source

Upon consideration, it’s clear victims of crime (and their families) may be additionally influenced by factors other than their religious beliefs, particularly if they’ve been seriously affected by the crime. Their thoughts and feelings (and their unconscious desires or repressed issues) will factor in their decision, even unintentionally. Thus, it would seem highly unlikely that anyone would be able to remain impartial enough to play any part in the sentencing process of a criminal case where they were the victim, or knew those concerned.

In conclusion: it’s unreasonable for any individual (or group) who may be inclined to display any kind of bias, be it based on personal knowledge of the crime, the criminal, or the victim, or driven by any resulting emotional or psychological affect of the crime in question, or a result of their personal religious beliefs, to be involved in any way in the decisions regarding the terms of imprisonment, or other punishment, dealt to the criminal by the courts of the land.

If you enjoyed this article you may also like the following:

Right or Wrong: Are there any absolutes?