Imposing Reasonable Limits on Victim Impact Statements

Every now and again, I will come across a news article that makes me shake my head. It used to be a couple of times a week, but now with Mr. Trump in the White House, it seems to happen multiple times daily.

Today I'll stick to a piece of Canadian news: a sad story about the murder of a 17-year-old student in Manitoba. You can read all about the background of the case on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website at:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/16-victim-impact-statements-cooper-nemeth-1.4498225

As you can see by the article, the trial judge had received almost a hundred victim impact statements to be added to the court record. This unusually high number stems from the fact that the 2015 Canadian Victims Bill of Rights does not define what constitutes a "victim". Theoretically, someone who learned of this tragedy via newspaper article may be so moved by it that they themselves are victimized by it.

I will concede that this young man was beloved in the community; popular in school; a star hockey player. An all around stud to be sure. His death, regardless of the connection to drugs, is tragic.

But for so many to come forward proclaiming themselves as a victim in this case actually has the potential to do more harm to any notion of justice than good. Yes, 16 of the 96 people who submitted statements will have their say, but it comes with a cost. A cost to taxpayers, a cost to the timeliness of the court system and at the cost of other accused persons waiting for justice to come for them.

The accused in this case was supposed to be sentenced on January 15th. The submission of 96 victim impact statements have delayed sentencing, thereby delayed other trials which were set to begin. Keep in mind a judge needs to preside over one case at a time, and the longer one goes, the greater the wait for anyone else coming into the system.

While I agree with the aims of the Victims Bill of Rights, I do not agree that they are so important as to hinder on the practicalities of the justice system. A young man is dead, and can no longer speak for himself. Family members, close friends, a community leader ought to be able to make a statement. Sixteen is rather excessive and an unnecessary waste of the court's time.

There is another dynamic to this, which is mentioned in the article. While this young man was clearly very popular in school, what about those who are less so. What about the victims of bullying who are subjected to extreme forms of violence? Will the number of people stepping forward to make victim impact statements sway sentencing? After all, a judge or jury in this country is supposed to take into account the impact the crime has had on the victim. It would be horrific for the justice system to begin considering the heaviest penalties for those found guilty of crimes based on the number of people who have come forward proclaiming themselves to be victims.

From a judicial perspective, we must distinguish between being victimized and the genuine grief and sense of loss of losing a friend, family member or teammate.

Image Credit: Rachel Clarke (via Flickr)