I can think of nothing worse than reshaping the criminal justice system to prioritise victims

Moral panic in the dock

I can think of nothing worse than reshaping the criminal justice
system to prioritise victims

o David Wilson
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday 5 November 2009 23.00 GMT

Over the past 24 hours victims' champion Sara Payne has been pleading
for government to "redefine" and "reshape" the criminal justice system
to give greater priority to the victims of crime – even though she
acknowledges that her own experience of the justice system has always
been positive.

Not only has it been hard to escape Payne – whose daughter Sarah was
murdered in 2000 by the known paedophile Roy Whiting, and who has
since that awful crime campaigned for a "Sarah's Law" to give parents
information about convicted child sex offenders – but it also remains
difficult to be seen to criticise her position. To do so appears
insensitive and cruel, although frankly if we want to take her
seriously we must leave sentiment behind and expose her thinking to a
much more critical analysis than it has so far received.

Should the criminal justice system be reshaped towards victims? I can
think of nothing worse. Surely we want to prioritise what is
reasonable, proper and proportionate in relation to those cases which
come before the courts, as opposed to the inevitable emotion that some
victims of crime – for all the right reasons – inspire. Leave reason
and proportionality behind and we are on the slippery slope towards
state-sanctioned vigilantism in our courts, with the law being
administered according to media sensation and moral panic.

I'm also not convinced that the criminal justice system is in any
event the best place for victims' needs to be addressed. I would have
presumed that these were much better managed through, for example, the
NHS – if counselling or health needs were paramount – or though any
number of NGOs and charities if there were broader needs or questions
related to the courts, the probation or prison service.

So too – I know from my own experiences – that this very phrase
"victims' needs" totalises what victims actually want, and so hides a
mass of differing views, issues and experiences. Payne says that she
wants the justice system to support the victim to overcome the impact
of crime so that they can get on with their lives. But what form
should that support take?

I have met the victims of house burglary, for example, who have been
traumatised by what has happened to them and find it impossible to
"move on" from that event, and I have spoken with those who want to
meet the person who committed the burglary to tell them how this has
made them feel.

On the other hand, I have come across those who simply want their
property back, or to be awarded compensation. And, here's the thing,
each and every one of these different groups of victims would be able
to access support to meet these needs, or be able to achieve what it
is that they want within the criminal justice system as it stands.
Period.

No one – least of all me – would dream of criticising the family of a
murdered child for the position that they subsequently take in
relation to how they were treated in relation to that crime, or what
they want to change as a consequence of that shocking event. But are
such individuals in the best position to advocate for these changes?
Or might they instead – for perfectly understandable reasons – be
partial and driven to campaign for policies that might not necessarily
deliver on their hoped-for objectives?

So, despite my admiration for what Sara Payne has done since 2000, I
do not want our criminal justice system reshaped towards victims, but
rather I want justice to continue to characterise what that system
does. For when justice is at the heart of our criminal justice system,
we all benefit – victims, society, and, dare I say it, offenders too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/05/moral-panic-in-the-dock

WM
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]