Should crime victims be able to choose punishment

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I thought of this after reading the below answer in my thread on another forum about whether all murderers should be executed. I feel that if such a thing were to happen it would cause more harm than good because bad things because sentences would be based on revenge. And besides with victim impact statements judges will be able to take the family's wishes into consideration.

I think it should be up to the family of the victim, Some may want these criminals to suffer in the lonely horrible prisons. On the other hand some may want "an eye for an eye" and to have them killed. They also may not want to risk the possiblity of the criminal escaping the jail. Everyone has a different opinion, and I believe the people should decide the fate of the convicted murderer, as the murderer decided the fate of their loved one.

[huginnmuninn]

of course not if i stole a candy bar from you i dont want to be thrown in jail for fifty years because you mad at me. the justice system only works when the judge jury etc. are impartial if you put someone who is involved in the process it screws up the whole system

[Rutherford The Brave]

Knowing how pissy people get no. Oh Hey I ran a red light and hit your corvette by accident, I made a mistake but I will pay for it. NO YOU WILL DIE!

[Amnesiac]

The point of a jury is to make trials fair. Replacing them with the victim's wishes would destroy democracy as we know it.

[Suicune]

Talk about abusive...

[Sith Lord 13]

Pure choice, no, but I believe they should have a say. And they do.

[Jess]

No, it would be abused. but they should have a say

[Azunite]

"Excuse me did you just broke to my house? You there, cop, execute him!"
A neutral side should give the punishments

[Paladino]

I think that in some cases the victims and or the family of the victims should get to pick if its a serious crime, like rape or murder because it would be fair if it was that way for rape and murder but for minor crimes like stealing or assault then no the victims shouldnt get to pick the judge should get to decide what happens to the people who commit them.

[Sordid Saint]

No. Like everyone else is saying, it would be abused too easily. They should have a say in what happens, but there needs to be a limit. Maybe if they said what they wanted, the judge could go from there, but it would need to be negotiated first. And what about things like going to court for drugs or something like that? The victim is technically the state/country. Then who would have a say in what's going to happen?

[The Joker]

I think that in some cases the victims and or the family of the victims should get to pick if its a serious crime, like rape or murder because it would be fair if it was that way for rape and murder but for minor crimes like stealing or assault then no the victims shouldnt get to pick the judge should get to decide what happens to the people who commit them.

Because someone has done something wrong, they therefore lose all humanity and should be punished in any way we want?

[Nexus]

of course not if i stole a candy bar from you i dont want to be thrown in jail for fifty years because you mad at me. the justice system only works when the judge jury etc. are impartial if you put someone who is involved in the process it screws up the whole system

Not that I support this idea or anything, but penalties have to be in proportion to the crime. Throwing someone in prison for fifty years for a petty crime wouldn't happen.