I’m talking about murder trials.  Since the 90s, the rights of victims have expanded greatly—something which is good.  So often, the media and the courts give all the attention to the criminal while the innocent victim is ignored.  The new laws have allowed victims to be heard in many different ways.  The one that I’m concerned about is their right to make a “victim impact statement” at the end of the trial but before sentencing.

Originally, it was intended to be a statement made to the sentencing judge about how the criminal’s actions have affected the victims—or the family and friends if the victim has been killed.  So far, so good.

Since then, prosecutors have taken this simple process and stretched it all out of shape.  Now, it’s common for prosecutors to have more witnesses testify at the “victim impact statement” part of the proceedings than the trial itself.  Power point presentations of the victim as a child, as a young person, the victim with their family and their own children are all shown to the judge.  If you’ve been to a wake or visitation prior to a funeral, you’ve seen posters with photos of the deceased.  This is no different.

In response, defense lawyers have also prepared similar power point shows about the defendant including pictures of their childhood and families.

So, what’s wrong about all this?

In parts of the Middle East today and in medieval Europe, it was common for the family of the victim to act against the killer—revenge.  The family took justice into their own hands and killed the defendant.  Since then, we’ve recognized the value of putting distance between the crime and a just resolution.  It’s critically important to have someone removed from the emotions of the crime make the decisions about the outcome—to be fair to both sides.  This is a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system.

The practice of having a wake or visitation program before a judge prior to sentencing at a victim impact statement, returns our courts to exactly what happens in parts of the Middle East today.  The detachment and thoughtful and fair resolution of the process is skewed.  Each side is trying its best to play on the emotions of the judge in order to get him to make a decision that is not fair—at least to one side.

For a good example of how this happens, look at the Boston Bomber case.  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/21/boston-marathon-bombing-victims-speak-out-death-penalty-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-trial/897z0Q5yTqxqOzhbNTvxiJ/story.html#

This is a little different in that the prosecutors want the death penalty and must convince a jury to agree with that—but the process of a victim impact statement is similar to what I’m writing about.

What do you think?  Is this really justice or a return to revenge?

The post Victim Impact Statements appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  For over thirty years there have been laws on the books to pay crime victims.  In the courts it’s called “restitution.”  A victim has the right to receive money from the offender as part of the sentencing process.

2.  Whenever restitution is ordered by the judge, a restitution study is also part of the order.  This study is conducted by a department of the court system.  They contact the crime victim and ask for proof of the loss.  This could be records of valuables taken from a home in a burglary.  It could be the repair estimates for a damaged car.  It could be proof of lost wages or a list of valuables taken from a stolen purse.  Some crime victims also have medical bills for injuries.

3.  The Restitution Department checks-out the claims of crime victims to make sure they’re not padding their losses.  They would be able to use the power of the court to collect more than they’re entitled to receive.  The final report is given to the judge and the perpetrator.

4.  The criminal is ordered by the judge to pay the full amount to the Restitution Department—not the crime victim.  This avoids any possible trouble or further disagreements between the crime victim and the criminal.

5.  Does the criminal get any protection?  The Restitution Department has already checked-out the crime victim’s claim and proof of loss.  If the victim has been compensated by insurance for example, the victim can’t collect twice.  In that case, the judge would order the criminal to pay only the deductible amount the crime victim has paid out of pocket.  Also, if there were more than one criminal convicted, they will all share responsibility for payment—each of them paying a share of the loss.

6.  What if one of the criminals didn’t actually cause the loss to the crime victim?  The co-defendant is still liable for some part of the restitution because the law wants the victim compensated first.  The defendant’s rights come second.

7.  What if the criminal is unemployed and doesn’t have any money and can’t compensate the crime victim?  Most states have a Crime Victims Reparations Board.  This may be a source of money for the victim who must apply for compensation from the board.

Does this seem fair to you?  What would you do differently?

The post Do Crime Victims Get Paid Back? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In my last post, I explored the movement across the country to privatize the prison systems in many states.  We looked at the high cost of maintaining prisons and one of the major reasons why the cost is suddenly so high–longer prison sentences and less chance for parole.

Starting in the 1980’s legislatures across the U.S. decided to “get tough on crime” by adding prison sentences to crimes that previously didn’t call for them and lengthening existing prison sentences, reducing the time on parole.

As a consequence, the prison populations in most states have sky-rocketed and so have the costs.

Before I look at an NPR story, I have to disclose that I am a member of a public employee union along with the prosecutors and public defenders in the county where I work.

A fascinating report from National Public Radio investigated the prison system in California.  See their story at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=111843426

Besides the increased prison sentences, they found a curious connection between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association–a public employee union–and the rising costs of the prison system there.  The union has become one of the most powerful political forces in the state.  Over the years, it’s contributed millions of dollars in support of tougher laws and longer prison sentences.  Since these laws passed, the number of union correctional officers has grown from 2,600 to 45,000.  The average salary in 1980 was $15,000.  By 2009 one out of ten officers made over $100,000.

Talk about an increase in costs!

NPR found that most of the funding to support new laws that increased prison penalties came from a political action committee that the union created for the purpose of  promoting a “Victim’s Rights Group.”  Question: why is a public employee union of correctional officers supporting victim’s rights?  And why should locking people away for longer time do much to help victims?

Today in California, most of the Corrections Department budget goes for salaries and benefits of the union employees. (70%) While just 5% goes for education and vocational training for inmates to give them job skills so that when they’re released, they don’t have to commit crime to support themselves.  To me, investing in job skills is actually going to help potential victims since the paroled inmates won’t be committing as many crimes.

I’m not saying that public employee unions have caused the same result in every state–but it sure looks like it in California.

What should we do about it?

The post Public Employee Unions=Too Expensive? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.