Human Dignity of Victims

This morning, my Comparative Criminal Justice class had a lively discussion about whether or not victim impact evidence should be admitted at a sentencing hearing - in other words, should the court be allowed to hear testimony from the victim (or if he is no longer living, the victim's family) about the impact the crime has made? Some argue such testimony is highly prejudicial because it aims to evoke an emotional response and really has nothing to do with the crime itself or the criminal, while others argue it is important for the victim or loved one to share his experiences and have a voice in the proceedings.

It is often difficult for me to come to conclusions on many topics, yet today I actually surprised myself by going against my first instinct. I ended up defending and believing in a position opposite that which I originally started with. I do see validity in both perspectives, but what it comes down to for me is human dignity. By allowing victim impact evidence during the sentencing phase, we are basically asking the judge or jury to make a judgment about the victim's worth to society. Is it fair to give a murderer more time in jail because the person he randomly robbed was a teacher and mother of three children rather than a prostitute? I believe God created all human beings with value and dignity, and we should not judge someone more "worthy" because of what she has accomplished so far or who she is connected to. We all are made in God's image and have potential, whether the world currently considers us "valuable" or not. Moreover, the court's job is not to determine the worth of a victim's life, but to determine a punishment that fits the crime and the criminal. So I therefore think victim impact evidence should be inadmissable during sentencing.

But this is just a very brief sketch of my developing thoughts, and I'm curious about others' opinions on the topic.

And an unrelated random photo for your enjoyment - this is a view of what I often see while walking around campus: