Should a Victim who Attacks a Perpetrator of a Crime in Court Be Charged with a Crime? (legal, lawyers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This link is to a video of a man who could not restrain himself in court. I feel terribly sympathetic to him because the man who was charged with raping and strangling his mother was appearing in court. He couldn't control himself and fought through three court bailiffs to physically attack the perpetrator of the crime. In my heart, I suppose I agree with him.
The problem is that we cannot let our hearts rule our actions. We must use our heads and brains. A courtroom would quickly become a place of anarchy and chaos if we allowed victims (and families of victims) to physically take revenge on those who perpetrate crimes. The whole purpose of a justice system is so that problems like crime can be dealt with in a manner appropriate for a society that believes in the rule of law.
If a victim or a member of their family does not believe they can conduct themselves peacefully in a courtroom than they have no place there. They should stay home and out of the presence of the perpetrator.
So, reluctantly, I take the position that those who can restrain themselves in court should be charged with a crime. In many cases, a sentence of probation may be appropriate. However, there must be some sanction to stop such behavior and maintain order in our courts.
I agree with your position, OP. The reason is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in court. The defendant, although he probably has much evidence against him, may not actually be guilty of the crime he is accused of. Even wrongful convictions occur occasionally. Besides, vigilante justice although understandable, is stil unnacceptable behavior in our society. By stooping to this behavior, the son is perpetuating violence himself.
So some serial killer ( according to the dramatic voice over) has his lawyers whining about how he is being held without bail and is residing in "extreme confinement"?
The heck is wrong with this legal system? Poor serial killer.
ONE of the multiple victim's sons gives the serial killer what he deserves (a little less than), and would probably get worse if he was let out in to gen pop while in jail.
I don't blame the visceral reaction this man had to seeing the person who RAPED and MURDERED his MOTHER standing less than 10 feet away from him.
No need to criminalize - ban the victim's family member from showing up to any future hearings or a trial.
Absolutely. Decent people want justice, not revenge. I feel for his loss, but attacking someone is wrong regardless of the circumstances. It wasn't an issue of self defense, it was his anger. He acted in the wrong and should face some kind of punishment. Nothing too severe, given the circumstances, I would say he's not actually a bad person but the criminal justice system should be a method of repairing those who act on impulses, assuming those impulses do harm to society. If you can't control your temper, even if you're anger is understandable, it's a problem.
Revenge is always immoral. Justice is what intelligent people demand; the feebleminded call for revenge. I don't trust the feebleminded.
Absolutely. Decent people want justice, not revenge.
Revenge is always immoral. Justice is what intelligent people demand; the feebleminded call for revenge. I don't trust the feebleminded.
I disagree...revenge can be good, and provides a justice that "intelligent" people would deny.
It's not "feeble minded" to want revenge....the LAW sure doesn't provide any, and most times no justice as well....if they did people wouldn't seek revenge.
I agree that the man should be disallowed in any future court proceedings, but considering the circumstances in this case I feel the court shoulders some of the responsibility by not realizing this potential scenario and not providing the proper security should it arise.
We have a court because we are supposed to be civilized. When justice is metered out without a fair trial society turns into a mob mentality shoot first and ask questions later.
I understand the frustration when the accused is sitting there, we all know he did it yet he submits a not guilty plea.
It is a all a big game that lawyers play but it is the best system there is.
It does take huge civilized restraint not to do what the guy did in that video.
By stooping to this behavior, the son is perpetuating violence himself.
If he is indeed guilty, how did the son "stoop to this behavior"? How exactly is attacking someone who raped and strangled an innocent person equivalent to raping and strangling an innocent person yourself? You act as if all violence is equivalent. It obviously is not--even the law says that violence is justified in certain circumstances.
Perhaps the victim's son thought he could restrain himself but when he saw the man that raped and murdered in court and saw the defense whining about how hard her criminal had it, the son just lost it. I think this is a situation where many will think they won't lose but would.
If I were in charge of the world, I would allow the victim's son about 10 minutes alone in the room with raping murdering serial killer and find no issue with what happened to the raping murdered serial killer. The criminal needs to toughen up anyway because once in prison and they find out what he did, well, "you reap what you sow".
In this case, I do not think that the son should be charged with anything. Family should be allowed in the courtroom. Maybe if the court system would actually punish people, the frustration level would be lower.
I am guessing what the criminal got was much less invasive then what the raped and murdered was subjected too.
If he is indeed guilty, how did the son "stoop to this behavior"? How exactly is attacking someone who raped and strangled an innocent person equivalent to raping and strangling an innocent person yourself? You act as if all violence is equivalent. It obviously is not--even the law says that violence is justified in certain circumstances.
I have suggested that some latitude might be given when it comes time to impose a penalty on someone for doing what this son did because of the strong feelings he must have had. In other words, it might operate as a partial, not complete excuse.
What I do not do and I hope that no one else would do is say that the conduct is justifiable particularly within the confines of a court.
Violence is not justified in this circumstance and the minute that we start justifying it, we might as well abolish courts completely and leave people to their own devices when it comes to exacting justice. If the offender does not have a right to be free from this sort of thing, than certainly the people around the offender and those attending court proceedings have a right to not have this happen while they are there.
If you can't behave in court, you have no right to be there period. I would even say someone on trial in court who misbehaves in court should lose his right to attend his own proceedings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
