A current fad in criminal law pushes “victim’s rights”, including victims appearing in tears at sentencing hearings, and before parole boards to bewail their loss. One lady whose famiy member was murdered bewailed her having to spend years at trials, sentencing, parole boards. Sad indeed. She could instead have been learning to forgive, so she could get on with her life.
By promoting this victim involvement, we promote a revenge factor in the criminal process. We lose sight of the great principles that it is the state’s, not the victim’s business to punish. More seriously, we lend credence to the view that it is almost a civic duty for the victim to pursue the criminal through the process to achieve something called “closure”.
How far more blessed is Corry Ten Boom’s forgiving, described in "The Hiding Place". She survived a Nazi prison camp and made presentations on forgiveness after the war. A man came up to thank her after one of her presentations and she recognized him as an SS guard who had perpetrated the atrocities that led to her sister’s death in Auschwitz. Corry could not bring herself to take the man’s proffered hand until she prayed God to give her strength to do so. Afterwards she felt a flood of relief through the prayer and forgiving process. Isn’t that why Christ taught, “Of you it is required to forgive all me” and “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”
Of course we seek restitution where available, but we must not invite victims to prolong, re-live, and renew their agony over and over again in the criminal process. We only exacerbate the original injury by doing this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you. The process is unhealthy for both sides- and makes it so that the legal view, in instances, isn't viewing things as they should. Additionally, I believe that the media's sensational coverage only enables weak victims to become weaker disallowing themselves to rise above what occurred to them.
-Doug Minnick
We live in a society of victims, so I can't say I'm surprised. It also creates inconsistencies in sentencing, as one defendant who is unlucky enough to have harmed a pillar of the community receives a much harsher sentence than a defendant who has just hurt some nobody. Reminds me of a favorite saying we have around our office. When a prosecutor recognizes they have a weak case, they often dredge up the "oh you're not going to make this poor victim re-live the experience by testifying, are you?", to which we usually respond, "you're the one with the subpoena dragging them in here."
ReplyDeleteWe had a sentencing recently in a case where a kid had a .083 (or so) blood alcohol content, was on the way home from a family picnic on a two-lane road, and went to (legally) pass his sister, just ahead of him. At the same time, a pillar of the community with a $200k plus annual income was on his bike coming in the opposite direction, and moved into the lane to pass a friend riding with him and was struck by the truck, killing him instantly. The Defendant pled guilty, and the sentencing hearing was about 2 hours long, with a parade of pictures and slide shows and victims crying and reading poetry on the stand. Thankfully the hearing was being handled by a very competent attorney from our office, who had a Rule 11 in hand binding the State and the judge to a certain sentence (which did involve a fairly lengthy prison term). However, what I did not hear from any of the family or friends was anything about forgiveness. How tragic.
How inspiring was the article, and subsequent Youtube clip, of the man who lost his wife and some of his children when they were hit by a drunk driver, and went on not only to forgive the man who hit them, but to develop a fatherly relationship with him. I can't say I would have the strength to follow that road if I lost any of my family in such a way, but it is the right road and I would hope I would at least get to a certain measure of forgiveness.
Sam