02. Aug. 2010. – 11:56:35
In recent years the rights of
“victims” so called have achieved a position in legal proceedings whereby statements
can be read out in court prior to sentencing and a high powered Commissioner
for Victims and Witnesses [The Justice of the Peace 29th July] has been
appointed to champion their cause. Two victims have risen to public prominence
and influence as a direct result of the unspeakable horrors suffered by their
daughter and husband respectively; Sara Payne whose direct efforts have brought
about the expansion of the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme and Helen
Newlove who was created Baroness Newlove of Warrington and who has been a
forceful campaigner against anti-social behaviour since her husband's murder in
August 2007.
It is certainly the case that victims or the victims` relatives of crimes such as were committed against these two women`s family members should if they wish be allowed greater involvement within the legal proceedings up to a point but where their involvement on a national scale is using the emotion generated by their individual experiences perhaps there is a time to say we should step back and consider whether in fact this is “institutional vigilantism” by the back door.
Three recent events come to mind which illustrate this trend. The case of Jon Venables and his admitted child pornography offences who was jailed for two years recently has led to further public comment by Denise Fergus the mother of the child Venables callously murdered, on the inadequacy of the current law. The near fatal attack in prison on Ian Huntley, the killer of the two young girls in Soham, has resulted in his suing the Home Office citing the prison service`s lack of care in protecting him from such events. And as a general statement that we are all potential victims the outcry over the recent decision by the Appeal Court on two anonymous terrorist suspects that the control orders under which they have existed for over three years must not only be revoked but quashed with retrospective effect. As a result they are seeking compensation.
In my opinion concern for “victims” is apparently a laudable consideration when the victim is the innocent untarnished child or a father vainly trying to protect his family. But similarly to the individual who espouses freedom of speech; it must apply to freedom of speech for those whose opinions he finds abhorrent. The same is true when discussing the “rights” of victims: they cannot apply only to those for whom we harbour great sympathy. If they cannot apply to all they should apply to none.
It is certainly the case that victims or the victims` relatives of crimes such as were committed against these two women`s family members should if they wish be allowed greater involvement within the legal proceedings up to a point but where their involvement on a national scale is using the emotion generated by their individual experiences perhaps there is a time to say we should step back and consider whether in fact this is “institutional vigilantism” by the back door.
Three recent events come to mind which illustrate this trend. The case of Jon Venables and his admitted child pornography offences who was jailed for two years recently has led to further public comment by Denise Fergus the mother of the child Venables callously murdered, on the inadequacy of the current law. The near fatal attack in prison on Ian Huntley, the killer of the two young girls in Soham, has resulted in his suing the Home Office citing the prison service`s lack of care in protecting him from such events. And as a general statement that we are all potential victims the outcry over the recent decision by the Appeal Court on two anonymous terrorist suspects that the control orders under which they have existed for over three years must not only be revoked but quashed with retrospective effect. As a result they are seeking compensation.
In my opinion concern for “victims” is apparently a laudable consideration when the victim is the innocent untarnished child or a father vainly trying to protect his family. But similarly to the individual who espouses freedom of speech; it must apply to freedom of speech for those whose opinions he finds abhorrent. The same is true when discussing the “rights” of victims: they cannot apply only to those for whom we harbour great sympathy. If they cannot apply to all they should apply to none.
No comments:
Post a Comment