Rights of victims? Watch

toipot2
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Just read this on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003192.stm

Now, where did this rights of victims come from? All these "rights" seem to be according to the press is the right for vengeance.

I didnt think that the punishment system in this country was meant to be extracting revenge for the victims, but rather preventing the criminal from doing more harm, and eventually rehabilitating them.

Thoughts? :p:
0
reply
tbm
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
Personally I think this is a good idea to some extent, however a victim of crime is always going to be biased (and who would blame them!) so Im not sure it would work in theory- obviously they would want them to stay in prison for longer.

It can be argued that the current punishment system, in some cases, isnt working, so something needs to be done. You only need to look at the re-offending rates to see that.

Does the USA already have some sort of system like this?
0
reply
by-torslayshisfoe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
Why not?

Seems like a good system to me. Criminals should pay restitution to their victims.
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
(Original post by numero sept)
Why not?

Seems like a good system to me. Criminals should pay restitution to their victims.
although particular victims of crime are the most affected I don't think they are best placed to be involved in the way in which the crime is dealt with and I don't think they should be compensated per se.
There must be a strong case for victims to play not part whatever in the dealing with the alleged victims. They cannot be expected to act with no vested interest.
A crime, no matter who committed against, is primarily a crime against society as a whole
0
reply
mishap
Badges: 0
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
rights of victims my back side...I say rights for the criminals, let them finish off the mouning money grabbers. OK, you've been a victim, brilliant, now get over it and stop crying. I've got a driving test next week but do you see me crying over it? Exactly, proved my point. THE END
0
reply
Johnny 5
Badges: 11
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
(Original post by deedee8)
A crime, no matter who committed against, is primarily a crime against society as a whole
This I agree with, largely. A court that is to decide on guilt and sentence does so in the spirit of objectivity, and any additional weight towards the emotions of the victim(s) puts this at risk.
reply
by-torslayshisfoe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
(Original post by mishap)
rights of victims my back side...I say rights for the criminals, let them finish off the mouning money grabbers. OK, you've been a victim, brilliant, now get over it and stop crying. I've got a driving test next week but do you see me crying over it? Exactly, proved my point. THE END
:confused:
0
reply
toipot2
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#8
Seconded, criminals must be judged fairly and objectively, not by the blindness of victims. Judges and those who work on parole boards are selected for their ability to reason accurately and according to the law, and im sure they do a good job of it, these are professional and experienced people.

So why turn over some of the power that they hold to victims whose opinions on the matter are likely to be somewhat biased.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (316)
37.4%
No - but I will (66)
7.81%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.34%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (401)
47.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise