41. Memorandum submitted by
Victims' Voice
1. Victims' Voice is an umbrella organisation
representing the views of some thirteen organisations whose members
have the direct experience of the consequences of crime and the
trauma of murder, sudden death and disaster. We are the only group
in the country representing those with this imposed expertise.
2. We have been campaigning for some 13
years for recognition of the rights of victims, both primary and
secondary, and those of society as a whole.
3. We attended the meeting on Tuesday 17
April to listen to Lord Woolf and would be grateful for the opportunity
to express our own views in evidence. We apologise for the lateness
of our submission and thank you for accepting it.
SUMMARY
4. Purposes of sentencing
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 identifies the
purposes of sentencing as noted in the Committees announcement.
However, we submit that the primary purpose
of sentencing is to benefit society.
Sentencing for crime should strike a balance
between the length and nature of sentence compared to the harm
done.
The greatest duty of society is to endeavour
to give its members self respect.
We have strong doubts as to whether there will
ever be sufficient funding for and discipline amongst both the
administrators and participants of community sentencing.
5. Tackling the drug problem and crime
We describe a model where all the needs of effective
sentencing can be met.
This brief scenario meets all the components
of effective sentencing in that:
— It punishes by removing freedom.
— Reduces crime, no drug use or trading
whilst in prison.
— Makes efforts to reform and rehabilitate.
— Makes reparation to society for the
offence.
6. Where sentencing is not effective
We make the case for a total and open review
on sentencing for murder.
Where sentencing most certainly is not effective,
and focuses entirely on the needs of the perpetrators and their
management, is in cases of murder.
If we, as a society, wish to show how much we
value life, why do we give greater value to the person who chooses
to kill?
The killer makes a decision to kill and all
involved have to suffer far greater consequences than the perpetrator.
We suggest that anyone reading this document
would not agree that a few years loss of freedom is fair exchange
for the life of one of their own.
The victim had a right to live his life.
PURPOSES OF
SENTENCING
7. We submit that the primary purpose of
sentencing is to meet the needs of society as a whole. Evolved
thinking has led us to a situation where the foremost thought
is given to the perpetrator. His welfare, his future, his reintegration
and wellbeing for the future. We challenge this thinking in the
strongest possible terms. In any given situation, the perpetrator
chooses to commit the act. Because he chooses to do so, does not
necessarily mean that society is at fault and therefore responsible.
To whom do we owe the greater duty of care? Those who choose to
commit the crime, or those affected by it? For each theory of
restorative justice there is an equal and opposite theory of punitive
justice and whilst each has its day whilst in fashion, the only
constant is the victim. By placing the welfare and addressing
the needs of the victim first we are at least able to apply a
totally consistent and transparent approach to our view on crime.
8. We believe that sentencing for crime
should strike a balance between the length and nature of sentence
compared to the harm done. Social, political and theorist thinking
has often stated that "prison doesn't work". In some
instances that can clearly be demonstrated, however, we believe
there has been a steady and progressive watering down of the principle
of justice in order to facilitate the management of the prison
estate. One is principle the other is management, they are two
clearly different and identifiable entities. The one should not
be sacrificed in order to make the other easier to administer
or to simply save money.
9. We believe that the greatest benefit
society can give to its members is self respect. But this cannot
simply be gifted, it most often has to be earned. There is therefore
a dual responsibility upon society to provide the means, and the
perpetrator to provide the will to reform. To give and continue
to give without any real commitment or effort from those we seek
to help is vastly expensive and leads to a very poor success rate.
Any approach to rehabilitation and reintegration must be both
structured and disciplined. The principles of restorative justice
have limitations in their application. Minor crime, such as antisocial
behaviour and shoplifting, extending to theft of motor vehicles
can benefit from the principles and may be beneficial in more
serious crime. In some crime, most notably murder, there are no
restorative measures that can even attempt to undo the harm done.
10. Community sentencing undoubtedly has
a value, in theory. However, for it to be effective there must
be a strong and robust framework to ensure its success. Currently
this is not the case. We also have strong doubts as to whether
there will ever be sufficient funding for and discipline amongst
both the administrators and participants of community sentencing.
It is currently seen as a soft option by both the criminal and
society. We support initiatives such as The North Liverpool Community
Justice Centre for addressing minor crime and the needs of local
communities. We strongly believe that community sentencing should
never be an option in more serious crimes nor any crime against
the person.
TACKLING THE
DRUG PROBLEM
AND CRIME
11. The model that follows is simply one
idea of how all the necessary components of sentencing, including
benefiting society, may be met.
12. We all know that drugs and crime are
almost inexorably linked, that it is a huge problem. We also know
that drug use in prison is prolific.
13. The first step is to build or designate
certain prisons as both a prison and a drug treatment centre.
The addicted offender has "done the crime, so must do the
time", but, whilst he is imprisoned we will also try to help
him. We will help him by providing a staged regime. The first
stage is in total isolation from the outside world, this is not
variable and is strictly adhered to. Visitors may only be seen
through glass panels. They either do "cold turkey" or
are given a suitable substitute, whichever is deemed correct.
They stay in this environment until they are tested clean and
have stayed clean for a designated period of time. From here they
go to the second stage where greater privilege is granted. They
must be tested everyday, modern technology needn't make this expensive,
and if they fail a test they go back to stage one. This process
is then repeated through whatever number of stages have been set
in place until they reach the last where they serve the rest of
their sentence, and they must serve the sentence in full. Good
behaviour is expected, not rewarded and any lapses mean an offender
moves back a stage. But, whilst they are serving their sentence
they are set to do "good works" on top of any other
rehabilitating measures.
14. In our modern world we could expect
to hear that the rights of prisoners are being breached in such
an environment, which may currently be so. However, we believe
that society has the right to dictate that if an offender chooses
to commit crime he has to accept that these are the consequences
of doing so and will have no redress to any court.
This brief scenario meets all the components
of effective sentencing in that:
— It punishes by removing freedom.
— Reduces crime, no drug use or trading
whilst in prison.
— Makes efforts to reform and rehabilitate.
— Makes reparation to society for the
offence.
15. It also benefits society as a whole
because when the sentence is fulfilled we will have a drug free
ex offender who then has the choice to stay clean and law abiding.
Society can clearly see that the balance has been struck between
punishment and rehabilitation.
16. We understand this is a simplistic view
but the principles are there. Firstly, that we do not accept offending
against society and there is a price to be paid. Secondly, that
we are strong and robust in our approach. Thirdly, the rights
of the individual are secondary to the rights of society as a
whole. Fourthly, we still care enough to help you.
WHERE SENTENCING
IS NOT
EFFECTIVE
17. Where sentencing most certainly is not
effective, and focuses entirely on the needs of the perpetrators
and their management, is in cases of murder. Murder is a bad crime,
but it is not bad enough to warrant you losing your own freedom
for life. This is what the current law says. We contend that,
in part, this law condones murder because it does not give recognition
to the consequences. The consequences of murder are so huge and
horrendous, they are beyond belief. No one, no matter how empathetic
or understanding, will have the slightest idea of what it means
to have a loved one deliberately killed, unless it happens to
you.
18. The minimum term for murder is always
accepted as very much less than whole life except in very exceptional
cases. If we, as a society, wish to show how much we value life,
why do we give greater value to the person who chooses to kill?
The principle is therefore set that the law, and hence Government,
is accepting of murder and gives lesser value to the innocent
than to the guilty. There will always be exceptions to the norm,
but if we truly value innocent life taken, the general principle
should be the opposite, "Life should mean Life", (or
at least fifty years served in prison) and only exceptional cases
should warrant less.
19. The killer makes a decision to kill
and all involved have to suffer far greater consequences than
the perpetrator. The victim loses all potential for any of life's
joys or fulfilment by as much as fifty or sixty years. They may
lose their childhood, there chance for parenthood or to end their
years in peace. They lose their ultimate right, their right to
life. The killer loses, relatively, a few years of freedom.
20. Are we not all meant to be equal under
the law? How does fifteen years loss of freedom equate to fifty
years loss of life? Where does our law show respect for the life
taken? So many of society's ills are due to lack of respect. Lack
of respect for authority, for property, for teachers, for hospital
staff, for the fellow man in the street. We all abhor the loutish
behaviour we witness and read about but current, and proposed
minimal sentencing, is the pinnacle of lack of respect, encased
in law.
21. Because the victim is dead, and their
rights died with them, they are, in all practical considerations,
forgotten. Their life is devalued for the benefit of the perpetrator.
Our Justice system says to it's citizens, "If somebody chooses
to kill you or any member of your family, for any reason, the
killer's life will be given greater value than yours, because
he lives and you are dead". This is current practice and
the message we receive and as a consequence, all life is devalued.
22. If our justice system shows lack of
respect for innocent life taken, how can it then expect its citizens
to be respectful?
23. The debate is always concentrated around
how much time is served in prison. To give balance to this debate
you need to know that many secondary victims' of murder are also
in prison. The only difference is theirs have no walls, but their
sentence is longer. They are imprisoned and limited in mind, body
and spirit. To a large extent, many lives have been destroyed
and they live out the rest of their days carrying a wound that
will never heal.
24. They are placed in their prison by the
will of one other, the murderer. They have had no chance to plead
their innocence, to plead extenuating circumstance or provocation.
To be judged by their peers, to be shown leniency by the court
and deprived of their freedom for a few years. They do not have
a term set so that they know they can come out and have all their
rights restored, have everything back that was taken from them.
25. Whilst the killer serves his sentence
in the certain knowledge that he will be released, they have the
Sword of Damocles hanging over them.
26. The debate as to how much time should
be served in prison would be better served by a different question.
How many years loss of freedom in exchange for a life?
27. Throughout various consultation documents
attempts are made to quantify, in terms of prison years, the value
of a life. Is one life of greater value than another? Is a policeman's
life more worthy than a child or a grandmother? Of course not,
yet the Criminal Justice Act says it is. "Most murders will
have a starting point of 15 years". This is the value placed
upon the majority of victims' lives. This is what the system will
say to the victims' family. Why are the victims' lives valued
so cheaply? Again, in the practical considerations, the victims'
life is forgotten.
28. All attempts to justly sentence based
on predetermined criteria are doomed to eventual failure. Each
life is unique, each circumstance unique. If we are all equal
then all life has equal value and the wilful taking of a life
deserves an equal sentence. The basic premise from which we should
work is that if you wilfully take a life, you will lose your freedom
for the rest of yours. This tells people that we value life. This
says we do not accept murder. This is fair. This is just.
29. Much weight and consideration is given
to the psychological reasoning for murder. We attempt to understand
why it has taken place, what were the circumstances. Yet no matter
what the reasoning, no matter the circumstance, the killer chose
to kill. That he may or may not be a different person in twelve
years time has no real relevance. The victim is dead, the family
have to live with the consequences. All remaining victims live
with the consequences of the killing for the rest of their lives,
but the killer should not?
30. The system is currently amorphous. It
acts, ostensibly, on behalf of society, yet is not directly accountable
to society. It is supposed to be representative of the views of
society, yet society does not hold the view that minimal sentencing
for murder is right. Society expects, and deserves, it's justice
system to respect innocent life—it does not. We believe
society wishes its justice system to say, "we respect innocent
life taken and we support the victim's family, we give care and
understanding to the killer only after these considerations".
The opposite is currently the case. By taking this view, we also
better serve the greater good, for there are always more victims
than killers.
31. From day one, the future of a murderer
is planned to release, to give him a second chance, to give back
what he has deliberately denied another. What right does any individual
have to devastate a family, both immediate and extended, and then
be treated with more respect and consideration than the victims?
None at all. Yet the system elevates the killer, concentrates
on his whole life wellbeing, and says to the victims, tough, you
just have to get on with it, this person is in our care and we
must be seen to care and understand. Therefore his wellbeing and
future life takes priority over yours. This is the message we
receive.
32. We suggest that anyone reading this
document would not agree that a few years loss of freedom is fair
exchange for the life of one of their own. Yet this is what the
current law says to secondary victims. It says you must accept
this judgement without question. The whole system of treatment
of convicted killers normalises the act and therefore diminishes
its impact in the mind of the public. We believe this is contrived
to serve the needs of particular groups of opinion but is not
generally for the public good. We have requested the reasoning
for such minimal sentencing on several occasions but it has never
been forthcoming. Before a valid judgement on such an important
issue can be made we all need to be aware of the reasoning for
it. The reasoning needs to be in the public domain so that it
may be analysed to ensure it meets the needs of both effective
sentencing and society. Our current understanding is that it is
geared toward belief rather than fact. We are left to conclude
that there isn't any valid reasoning or logic. We are left to
conclude that there is but one reason, the killer lives and the
victim is dead. And that ladies and gentlemen is as shallow as
"to the victor goes the spoils" and is no principle
upon which to set modern law.
33. It is not to be made here, but there
is also a very strong case that the actual sentencing law of this
country infringes the rights of the secondary victims of murder.
34. In essence our argument is simple. The
victim had a right to live his life. That ultimate right has been
wilfully denied by another. The victims' family had a right to
live their lives in peace and contentment in the knowledge that
their loved ones are safe. It is neither vengeful nor callous,
through bitterness or pain that we expect our system to respect
the life taken. It is simply that a potential killer should only
commit the act in the certain knowledge that if he does so, our
society will take his freedom for the rest of his life. For his
victim has lost far more.
22 April 2007
| 
