IS JUSTICE BLIND ENOUGH?

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the growth of victim culture - this idea that the victim of a crime should have some (perhaps a considerable) part to play in the decision about the sentence meted out to a convicted offender.

This unsatisfactory notion reared its head again the other day with a Commission talking about burglary and saying that the sentencing of the burglar should take account of the 'value' of items stolen in a much broader sense than just financial.

An example was given of a thief who took - for no known reason - an ultrasound picture of a baby in utero something, the mother who lost the photo said, correctly, could never be replaced. Such a heinous act should carry a heavier penalty than simply whipping away a microwave, so members of the Commission seem now to be saying and when challenged with the reasonable comment that the burglar could not be expected to know what was psychologically valuable and what was not, one expert replied that this was part of the risk a burglar ran.

Attractive as this idea may seem at first sight, I upon examination find it profoundly disturbing. The reason the statue of justice over the Old Bailey is blind-folded is to symbolize that such considerations should not be included within the judicial process.

Burglary is burglary, it is worse the more that is taken and thus the penalties for being caught carrying off the neighbour's toaster are lighter than those for stealing a private jet (not strictly burglary, I agree unless one has an astonishingly large house and keeps the 'plane inside it). But it should not be for the victim to list the emotional value of items taken to add extra days/weeks/months to a custodial sentence or pounds to a fine.

Running this to absurd extremes, let's take the case of a house and contents owned in common by husband and wife that is burglarized (to use that horrific neologism). Some items will have much more 'value' or at least meaning to one or the other party and in (as I say) 'extreme' cases, one side might be happy to see the back of a whole series of items whose disappearance leaves the other, heartbroken.

Shoud one party be able to strengthen a sentence because an emotionally charged china cat was taken and the other be able to reduce the sentence for the same reason? Certainly I'd be happy to see a burglar knocking off some of the family portraits that infest our walls.

More seriously, the dangerous issue is allowing those who are emotionally affected by a crime to bring that emotion to the sentencing table. Justice must be impartial and set out and organized by the clear-headed to protect those who, for whatever reason, are not.