>>>>>I view myself not as a chronic do-gooder - having read that her son approves of freeing her goes a long way of me agreeing with freeing her. While court system was in part created as to stop direct revenge, I think those directly affected by the crime (yes, I realize the most directly affected did not agree...) should be given the largest role in deciding if offender goes free early. So unless you have arguments showing the son being in cahoots or incredibly stooopid in other areas as well...
>>>>
>>>>The only way I could find to agree with the bolded above was if we have decided to change the nature of our criminal justice system from one of deterrence to one of vengence. In a system based upon deterrence we are interested in the prevention of future criminal activity both by punishing the convicted for their actions and by doing so in public so as to deter the future criminal actions of others through the knowledge of the punishment that awaits those actions. By removing or lessening the punishment we are similarly removing or lessening the deterrence. The opinion of the victim must be irrelevant for justice to remain blind and for the law to apply equally. Conversely, in a system where justice is served through vengence, the opinion of the victim should be paramount.
>>>
>>>After the sentencing Justitias job should be done in most cases - excepting things like new DNA evidence proving somebody innocent was sentenced wrongly. That way the law is applied equally. Freeing them early after some time served IMO is not part of that process - I remember some freed because correction facilities were overfilled, some because they behave well behind bars. I have no idea on how much power gov heads have to change sentences and/or free without further process or on parole or good behaviour or just because of a pardon. But why not include the victim or victims relatives in this case in such a process ? Might introduce an element of randomness into the process like early guns ot always hitting the target aimed at - which might be beneficient for deterrence if seen as a large number process, as a part of the sentence being cut off cannot be counted on automatically. The deterrence should be the sentence - if there are specific reasons not to carry out the sentence (which should only revolve around rehabilitating the offender) this IMO lies in the area of pardon - and there the victim could be asked.
>>
>>Involving the victim in sentencing and parole changes it from one based on the rule of law to one where the rules of man, namely emotion and vengence, are considered. Picture lady justice taking a peek beneath her blindfold.
>
>Over here victims have the option to enter the process as co-plaintiff at own cost in non-civil cases to make sure some overworked DA does not push the case aside. As they are not involved in sentencing, in my view Justitias blindfold is still in place - telling her in detail is not wrong, as wax in ear was proscribed for Odysseus and for a different situation. Parole in my definition is not based on rule of law, so yes, include the victim.

That actually sounds like a practical approach which makes sense....therefor it would never be adopted here..hahaha. The DA's here are indeed overworked, the public defenders - well there is no words to describe how over-worked they are. I saw a report just last week that showed that 95% of the cases handled by public defenders never even make it to court - they just take some sort of plea agreement. Part of the problem here is that a huge number of our "criminals" don't actually have a victim. Best example of that of course is the drug arrests.....if you have an average of one arrest every 42 seconds for marijuana then yeah the system is going to get clogged up pretty damn quick. with supposed "criminals". Heck if we had to let the victim talk here we'd be hard pressed to actually find one over half the time!