Victims and relatives

I was preparing a post on the recent proposal to introduce American-style “victim impact” statements in British murder and manslaughter trials, which I think is a really foolish idea. You can guess that it’s supported by the popular press. Today, another dumb idea was being discussed on the news: to invite the families of the London bombers to a memorial service for the victims, which is to be held in St Paul’s Cathedral on 1st of November this year. So I thought I’d combine the two.

I’m opposed to VI statements here for two reasons. The first is that they are unncessary, particularly for murder and manslaughter. In the case of murder, which is premeditated killing, the judge (who, unlike in parts of the US, is solely responsible for setting the sentence) has very little discretion: he must pass a life sentence, and can only recommend a minimum tariff. This generally varies from twelve years to life, although this can be extended or reduced by the Home Secretary. Manslaughter is other unlawful killing, and the judge has much more discretion in such cases, although even here, the difference made by a VI statement would be very limited. It wouldn’t change a five-year sentence to a life sentence, for example.

I actually dislike the idea of VI statements because it adds emotional performance to the process, and some people are better able to convey emotion than others. Sentencing should take into account the amount of material damage the killing has caused – for example, several children left without a mother and a family split – but for this to rely on a public statement would mean that sentencing would in part depend on the articulacy of the person giving the statement. And, of course, a conspiracy to frame an innocent man could be aided by a well-delivered sob story, possibly from the real murderer! Besides, the circumstances which led to the introduction of VI statements in the US, namely the practice of allowing a succession of witnesses attesting to the good character of convicted killers, are not seen here. (The BBC has a “talking point” discussion on this issue here.)

When I heard about the plan to invite the bombers’ families to the St Paul’s memorial, I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It’s a recipe for disaster, both in terms of the memorial itself and the PR surrounding it. It’s yet more negative publicity for the Muslim community, another excuse for Islamophobes to attack “liberal capitulation” and “dhimmitude”. I’ve looked in the usually suspect places and not found it yet, alhamdu lillah, but it was a major topic on the Vanessa “is there such a place as Palestine?” Feltz show this morning.

If they’d bothered to ask a reputable Islamic scholar, they would have discovered that Muslims do not, as a rule, attend non-Islamic religious rituals (as opposed to the social celebrations, and only then when they are in the family or something like that). If we must, we sit at the back or the edge and keep quiet. This would be the likely action of the bombers’ families if they were to attend, which would not look good. Were they to decline the invitation, this would be called a snub. They would be in a no-win situation.

Now, a caller on the show this morning commented that “the apple never falls far from the tree”, in other words, that they must have been partly steered along their path by their families, and that these families “must have known” – they must have noticed something unusual in the weeks before the bombings. In other words, they are not completely innocent. This is really quite ludicrous and offensive, because they could not have noticed anything specific; only that they were away from home longer than usual, or out later than they usually are, or “acting wierd”, all of which could point to any number of things.

In other words, unless it can be shown that they were encouraged by their families to carry out these acts, they have nothing to answer to anyone on earth for. They have lost their children and brothers, and need to grieve apart from the families of the victims because their grief is not the same, and should not be “invited” to an event which could lead to a physical confrontation. They should simply be left alone.

(More here.)