It has been suggested that the victims of crime should play a part in deciding what punishment an offender receives. While I agree that victims deserve to be heard, I disagree that they should have a direct role in determining sentences, because this would undermine the fairness and consistency of the justice system.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to involve victims more closely. In many legal systems, victims feel like bystanders in a process that is supposed to deliver justice on their behalf. Allowing them to describe how a crime has affected them, for example through a written statement read in court, acknowledges their suffering and may help judges understand the full impact of an offence. Some victims also find it valuable to meet offenders through supervised restorative justice schemes, where they can ask questions and receive an apology.
However, giving victims the power to decide punishments is a different matter. Victims are understandably affected by anger, fear or grief, and their responses vary enormously. One person who has been burgled might want the offender imprisoned for years, while another might be satisfied with compensation. If sentences depended on such reactions, two offenders who committed identical crimes could receive very different punishments, which would violate the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Furthermore, offenders who happened to target more forgiving victims would effectively be rewarded. Impartial judges, guided by sentencing rules and the circumstances of each case, are far better placed to ensure that punishments are proportionate.
In conclusion, the justice system should listen to victims and allow them to explain the harm they have suffered, but the final decision about punishment must remain with impartial judges. This balance respects victims while protecting the consistency on which public confidence in the law depends.