Fair and Impartial or An Eye for an Eye

There is a foundational philosophy of our governmental and justice system that underpins the rationale for our laws and our public relationships with other citizens. Most of these came from philosophers who were active during the period of “the enlightenment.” One of the things that I have questioned at this time is allowing victims or the relatives of victims to testify at trials when guilt or innocence is yet to be determined. It seems to me that this would interject an item of emotional content into a process that depends on the rule of reason and logic rather than emotion. After all, we are at that time deciding the fate of another human being and we owe it to that defendant to take all steps to avoid a wrong decision. In a larger sense we owe it to our country and ourselves since we allow our peers to decide our fates as well.

There are some who reject the notion of the “Social Contract” the terms of which govern our relationships with our fellow citizens. One of the precepts is that we give up certain prerogatives in order to enjoy the benefits of an orderly society. One of those prerogatives is that of revenge. By the terms of the Social Contract crimes against any citizen are considered to be crimes against all the other adherents of that contract. This is why we have prosecutors to act on our behalves rather than just going out and taking an eye for an eye.

If that is true then we have an obligation to be as fair and impartial as possible when meting out justice. It must not be from emotional stressors or it will no longer be fair and impartial but will seek an eye for an eye. It is my reasoning that brings me to the question of whether or not we should allow victims or relatives to testify to their personal suffering. At the same time it is permissible to allow those who were present to testify of such if it can help determine the accused's state of mind.

On the other hand, at the sentencing phase such testimony may be allowed in order to help gain an understanding of the impact of the crime. This may help a judge or jury assess penalty withing the boundaries set by law.

It is often said and the United States is renowned world wide for being a nation of laws, not of men and women. This is to ensure the equitable application of justice. Sometimes it does not work exactly right.