Why Victims Should Not Have a Say in Sentencing

Introduction
Sentencing is the most debated topic in Australia with regards to punishment and penalty;
mostly in the media and social media. Sentencing should be mandatory and there’s need to
introduce three strikes rule. Parole should be short, and bail replaced by remand. Victim impact
statements are allowed by legislation. A victim impact statement is written by either a primary
victim, a family victim or a representative of the victim. The statement outlines the impact that a
crime has had on the victim after the offender has been convicted and is to be sentenced
(Robinson 2001 p.749). The following paragraphs indicate the reasons why victims should not
be allowed to have a say in a sentence.
The law should and must be rational. Given the irrational feelings felt during court
proceedings, especially by the victim, it would be difficult for the victims to have a say in a
sentence. For instance, a strong form of victim sentence may reflect the capabilities of the victim
and win a longer sentence in cases where the victim impact statement is given weight in
sentencing. The rule of law should ensure equality and neutrality. Sentencing should, therefore,
be left in the hands of a judge to ensure there is fairness.
Victims have no understanding of the principles of law (Bandes 2016 p.40). During
sentencing, the prosecutors make references to certain chapters and clauses from the constitution.
The victims are usually not aware of such, and that may result in non-compliance to the rule of
law. For example, there are minimum years of sentencing associated to certain offenses which
must be followed to the latter. Therefore, sentencing should be left in the hands of the judges as
they have a clear understanding of the principles of the law.
Sentencing should be objective. There are a number of factors for imposing sentences
such as punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the community and deterrence as well as