VICTIM STATEMENTS
On the radio this morning, there was a piece about “victim statements” being read in court. A pilot scheme has apparently been taking place over the last ten months, with statements read after the verdict but before sentencing. It’s clearly about recognising “the victim” and giving them a voice. Only trouble is, the legal system is supposed to be clear-eyed, systematic and dispassionate. Worse still, these statements are often crass, if the programme I heard is anything to go by. The woman who was interviewed said, “My friends were buying their boyfriends DVDs and aftershave, but I was ordering mine a wreath”. (((!CRINGE!))). So, if these statements do have a tenuous impact on sentencing, which of course isn’t supposed to happen, presumably it’s the eloquent who have the most impact, which penalises those who debase sudden death and bereavement, for which there are no words, by discussing these intensely painful and personal mysteries in the same breath as DVDs.
I'm aware that this may be (and in fact, probably is) a deeply snobbish attitude. You could argue that the statements closest to ordinary life, which don't deal with abstrations in high-flung language, contain the most pathos and sentiment, and that these are therefore the most moving. Either way, this has to be a bad move.
On the radio this morning, there was a piece about “victim statements” being read in court. A pilot scheme has apparently been taking place over the last ten months, with statements read after the verdict but before sentencing. It’s clearly about recognising “the victim” and giving them a voice. Only trouble is, the legal system is supposed to be clear-eyed, systematic and dispassionate. Worse still, these statements are often crass, if the programme I heard is anything to go by. The woman who was interviewed said, “My friends were buying their boyfriends DVDs and aftershave, but I was ordering mine a wreath”. (((!CRINGE!))). So, if these statements do have a tenuous impact on sentencing, which of course isn’t supposed to happen, presumably it’s the eloquent who have the most impact, which penalises those who debase sudden death and bereavement, for which there are no words, by discussing these intensely painful and personal mysteries in the same breath as DVDs.
I'm aware that this may be (and in fact, probably is) a deeply snobbish attitude. You could argue that the statements closest to ordinary life, which don't deal with abstrations in high-flung language, contain the most pathos and sentiment, and that these are therefore the most moving. Either way, this has to be a bad move.
