Lo: Impact!

OK, I'm going to get crabby again about what has become a hallowed ritual in American society. It started out as a courtroom procedure, but has now evolved into a kind of fetish. I'm referring to what is called the "victim impact statement". You now what I'm talking about, because it's part of every single media story about the conclusion of a case involving homicide or grievous bodily harm. It's the point at which the victims -- well, even that is a misnomer, since the victim is usually dead, but whatever -- stand up in front of the courtroom and describe, in the most heart-rending and dramatic terms possible (undoubtedly picked up, in many cases, from watching Jerry Springer and similar abominations), the "impact" the act of the accused (and convicted) has had on them. Now, I do not wish to minimize or hold up to ridicule the actual harm done to the innocent by violent criminals. But I do question the wisdom of turning courtrooms into group therapy centers, where people can "vent", in any manner they see fit and for as long as they want, over things which really ought to be kept a bit more personal and -- dare I say it? -- private. But we live in a confessional society, where the highest form of virtue is deemed to consist of "letting it all hang out" -- wherever, whenever, and to whomever the opportunity arises. Feelings have to be "expressed" -- and not only expressed, but described in exact detail, using all the current therapeutic terminology (which, let's admit, the average citizen has a surprising grasp of). But it's not just feelings. There comes a point, after the first phase of speaking bitterness, when the convicted has to hear curses and condemnations brought down upon his head. These are those statements that all begin with "I hope you..." or "I wish you..." or some such. So not only do the accusers get a chance to wax Jerry Springer-esque, they also get a chance to do an off-Broadway imitation of one of the Puritan judges in "The Crucible".

My question is this. Actually, there are two questions. One is, does all of this actually do the "victims" any good? Well, it certainly gives them an opportunity to vent, and to "get it off their chest" -- although one doubts if the job is ever actually complete. Does it give them an opportunity to express frustration that, under our system of justice, no punishment is ever sufficient to compensate for the harm done? Well, we hear this time and time again, so it must be so. Can _any_ system compensate for serious wrongs done? Ultimately, no. And that is, in fact, one of the core ideas behind pacifism, i.e. that once a wrong has been done it is an exercise in futility to try and "get even". So the system does what it can -- or does it? What, after all, is the ratio of executions for first-degree murder to convictions for first-degree murder? I have no idea, but it must be one in hundreds, if not thousands. Is this justice? Apparently the people who offer victim impact statements don't think so, and I'm inclined to agree. Why give a guy "three hots and a cot" for the next 30 or 40 years when we know he's never going to get out of jail anyway? Wouldn't it be more humane to just put a bullet in his head? But since this is impossible, the resulting rage and frustration have to be expressed in some other way, i.e. in the side show called "victim impact statements".

But we're not done quite yet. Have a look at the convicted murderers while these victim impact statements are being read out. Are they being punished? Do they respond as if red-hot coals were being heaped upon their head? Hardly ever. Most commonly, they sit in an impassive, if not outright defiant, manner. We have to remember what sorts of human beings we are dealing with here. Many of them are psychopaths, and they really and truly don't give a damn about your, or anyone else's, feelings. The impact statments, if they accomplish anything, probably make them feel as if they've "won", on some perverse level. For all I know, they feel _better_ hearing all those statments than they would have otherwise. Do you call this a desirable outcome?

Well... I don't expect this to change, and in the scheme of things it probably isn't that big a deal. But I can't help feeling just a bit queasy whenever I read -- almost daily -- about another one of these courtroom dramas. Surely there must be a better way for all concerned.