Victims influence charges that DA will pursue

[CaptainPanic]

Is it normal to allow victims to influence the charges that the district attorney will pursue? Why are the victims talking to a district attorney, other than for information about the incident, and in court for a testimony?

I understand that a victim wants to get a criminal punished for what has been done, but isn't it dangerous to involve these (very emotional) victims in the determination of the official charges? And isn't it even impolite to involve them when they are still mourning, less than a week after the incident?

 

I'm so confused because I read in the news that the district attorney is talking to the Batman shooting victims to determine which charges they will pursue. See, if my 6-year-old daughter had just been shot dead a few days ago in a cinema (one of the victims really was a 6-year-old), you bet I'd ask for the death penalty. Or perhaps a life imprisonment, but with a daily torture. Some old medieval torture wouldn't be cruel enough.

 

But isn't that exactly why the victims are typically not involved in cases like this - certainly not so soon after the event? It is the job of a district attorney to get people punished. But to do that in a civilized way, I think that the district attorney must be a little detached from the case (or at least not be emotionally involved). Isn't that district attorney capable of figuring out which punishment is appropriate by himself/herself? I'm sorry to say, but this sounds a little like a mob rule. Is this normal in Colorado? Or perhaps in the whole USA? I don't think it's normal in the Netherlands, where I live.

 

I mean, it's been in the news now. How can that district attorney not ask for the death penalty now?

 

And please don't get me wrong, I feel really sorry for the victims. It's absolutely awful what happened there... and I know criticising this might make me sound like a heartless bastard, but I'd like to bring it up anyway.

[Iota]

Because they know he committed the crime, and by all standards the crime was very serious and inhumane, the court doesn't worry too much about avoiding bias. It's main goal is to choose the right punishment, to provide some sort of reparation for those affected by the crime. This means working by the thoughts and feelings of the victims, as well as the standard court principles.

 

I'm guessing the families could refuse to go to court if they wanted to.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Iota93

[Phi for All]

I think they also have to leave themselves some wiggle room in case there's a technical error and the case gets thrown out. They can't try him for the same offense twice, so they have to make sure they've got their bases covered. Death penalty cases are much more difficult on the victim's families as well, since they tend to get drawn out longer.

 

I don't think it's a matter of the victims having undue influence so much as wanting to make sure everyone's on the same page before the prosecution starts.

[CaptainPanic]

Ok, so is this normal in the US? We usually don't get too much news here about the lawsuits and court procedures (only the shocking news makes it onto our front pages).

[Phi for All]

It depends on the state. We don't have a lot of executions in Colorado, unlike Texas and Florida (we have 4 inmates on Death Row, compared to Texas with 308). I think there's some sort of drive-up express kiosk available to prosecutors in Texas, where they can get their verdict and sentencing done relatively quickly.

 

I think the DA may be worried about the suspect pleading insanity. I'm not sure what the ramifications are when you seek the death penalty on someone who is later declared insane. You can't execute someone who wasn't in their right mind at the time of the offense, but I don't know if seeking the DP and having it rejected on insanity lessens the sentencing more than seeking life imprisonment.

[CaptainPanic]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's weird that in this particular case, the highest penalty is wanted by the prosecutor.

 

I just don't understand that the victims are publicly involved. It makes it all sound like a trial and punishment are mainly revenge.

[imatfaal]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's weird that in this particular case, the highest penalty is wanted by the prosecutor.

 

I just don't understand that the victims are publicly involved. It makes it all sound like a trial and punishment are mainly revenge.

 

"It makes it all sound like a trial and punishment are mainly revenge." Yes that unfortunately sums it up pretty well; it cannot have rehabilitation as an end as there is no rehabilitation from capital punishment, there is no protection and future prevention argument here, I am pretty sure that no judicial action would act as a deterrent in such cases, and thus you are left with retribution. To even talk of restorative justice in a case like this would be bizarre.

 

This is not a wholly american feature (although the timing and press coverage is) - we have Victim Impact Statements in the England Wales and NI now. To be honest I have seen more VIS cause the judge to be lenient than those that mean the sentence is made harsher. Victims are often remarkably forgiving - and in minor cases they sometimes want the guilty party to know and understand the pain and suffering they have caused rather than to see the criminal punished. However in cases such as this tragic situation the number of family members calling for leniency and understanding will be small compared to those seeking blood.

[ewmon]

In some cases, the prosecutor will discuss with victims or families of victims alternative forms of prosecution.

 

For example, in a murder case where the proof is not overwhelming, the prosecutor might try to explain to the family that, if he tries to get the death sentence (juries decide the conviction, and mostly judges decide the sentence), the jury, which knows this, might lessen their conviction of the accused (for example, second degree or manslaughter — or even not guilty — instead of first degree) in order to avoid the possibility of the death penalty that could be given only under first degree.

 

In another example, in a rape case, where the proof is not overwhelming, the prosecutor might try to explain to the victim that, if he tries the accused for rape, the jury might not convict the accused due to the great stigma of rape compared to, say, aggravated indecent assault. The prosecutor might tell the victim that, with the indecent assault conviction, the accused will serve about the same amount of time, be required to successfully complete a sex offender rehabilitation program, be on a sex offender registry for the remainder of his life, etc.

 

The prosecutor might even want try the accused on a lesser, yet more certain, conviction in order to be able to turn around and have the accused committed for life under a three-strikes statute.

 

In this case, the prosecutor may be discussing the possibility of the accused being found innocent but insane, in which case he may be put in a high-security mental state hospital for, for example, "a day to life", but obviously, like Charles Manson, has no chance of being released.

 

What the prosecutor doesn't want is wanting to agree with something like an "innocent but insane" finding while the victims and families are emotionally clamoring for the death penalty.

 

In some/many? states, at the other end of the court case, the victims or the families of victims are allowed to make statements in court after the conviction but before the sentencing, and so they can also influence the sentencing at the point. This is unfair from the perspective that the victims or their families are not under oath at this point, and they can easily (and with impunity) "misrepresent the truth" to boost the punishment that the accused receives, and there's little that the accused can do.