My dad once owned a small apartment building, and after a mentally disturbed tenant tried to burn it down someone from court administration contacted him to solicit a "victim impact statement" for the judge to consider in sentencing. My dad declined, saying he was happy to leave it up to the judge, a presumed expert, before adding he thought it odd that the supposed crime victim should have a say in determining the sentence: not a disinterested, dispassionate party, it would seem. In relating the story, he mentioned that the court employee seemed to think his view on the topic was unusual, even kind of bizarre. The feeling was mutual.
I'm willing to disagree with my dad, believe me, but nothing in the Chauvin sentencing hearing on Friday persuaded me he's wrong. What is the point of the statements given by members of the Floyd family and Chauvin's mother? The former ask for the maximum sentence allowed and the latter declares that, contrary to reports, her son "is a good man." Not very enlightening, and the caption for the case is State of Minnesota v Derek Chauvin, not Floyds v Chauvins. When Judge Peter Cahill walked into the courtroom to listen to the dueling family statements, he had already composed a 22-page sentencing memorandum explaining his reasoning for the 22.5 year sentence he knew he was going to impose—and then did impose, soon as the speakers had finished.
Unless the goal is for court proceedings to resemble trashy day-time TV shows of yesteryear, in this case with cable-TV commentators in the role of the gasping studio audience, I don't see why these statements are allowed.
Comments