5 ms·

Why is it important what do the survivors of the attack think? Justice system is supposed to be objective - we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murder

by yread 11y ago

Why is it important what do the survivors of the attack think? Justice system is supposed to be objective - we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer.

mhurron 11y ago
> we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer. Ya, we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Justice system should try to settle matters first, be objective second, and deliver retribution third - in fall-thru fashion. So yes, there are bounds where you have to ask the victim. Often you don't even have case when victim decides to settle (not in cases of murder obviously).
Chirael 11y ago
I personally don't care, but the public might, and since the FBI seemed to cherry pick this opportunity to push the issue when public opinion might be more favorable to its request, it's nice to see something that counters it - even if only in the sphere of public opinion
imron 11y ago
Because the director of the FBI said one one of the reasons they were pursuing this was so they could look the families of the victims in the eye and say they'd done all they could to bring them justice. If the families say, actually, we'd rather you didn't do this, then that makes that particular argument less effective.
- white-flame 11y ago
  That's purely a marketing & power play statement, not one of meaningful decision making.
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    Sure. But this battle between the FBI and Apple is at least as much a PR and Political battle as it is a legal battle. The FBI's proposed interpretation of the AWA's powers is going to be a tough sell to appellate courts, as far as I can see. Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. And if that doesn't work, they're hoping to provoke enough outrage when Apple wins that congress is nudged into giving them the powers they want.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. Insofar as there is a political/PR battle, I think its just as likely that they want to lose publicly and use that to reinforce moves under way for getting specific new authority legislated. It's perhaps not coincidental that the various All-Writs Acts cases all came up after discussion of Congress adopting rules regulating provision of consumer end-to-end encryption.
      - npunt 11y ago
        From the statements thus far, it seems that the FBI has neither given much thought to unintended consequences such as foreign governments demands for similar access, nor been able to stay on message whether this is 'just for one phone' or for many. If the idea is to lose the case, which it could possibly be, they've executed that plan poorly because its now a PR fiasco. To be clear, I'm assuming when you say 'lose' you mean the case, not lose the PR battle. The latter is of course always a bad idea when you want to get your way.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    So it's good to undermine that marketing bullshit, right?
- ghayes 11y ago
  Plus, the families of victims are often discussed in murder cases. It doesn't change the ability of the government to prosecute, but it's informative to the feelings of those most effective.
maxxxxx 11y ago
I also find this strange but it's common in the US. The families of crime victims often have a say.
- kiba 11y ago
  They already have too much sympathy because they are victims. Nobody cares about the assailants. So, they get longer sentence and less help. What are they going to do when they're out there in the street?
alanwatts 11y ago
At a high level, the justice system has never been objective, at least in regards to the poor and minority groups.
dmix 11y ago
The whole bourgeoning field of legal thought called "Restorative justice" is questioning the logic of pursuing justice for justice sake. Ignoring the victims wants while prioritizing the wills of career-minded prosecutors and the cynical world-view of law enforcement. To me that sounds broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
- _yosefk 11y ago
  Erm... you totally ought to ignore the stated "desires" of victims when, say, going after a murderer, who may threaten the surviving relatives so that they say they don't want persecution. There are pretty good reasons for criminals being sued by the state for some crimes and by the victim in others (I don't have a source but I'd use "economic analysis of law" to find some of the sources that try to approach this issue systematically.) On the other hand, since in reality the rule of law is often way weaker than the rule of, say, public opinion, or bribes, etc. etc., it of course matters a lot what the victim thinks; if one thinks that the whole purpose of the FBI is to sway the public opinion to gain power, then of course the way to counter this is to sway the public opinion in the opposite direction, and the public will care about the victim's opinion. (In general, it feels that the share of the population truly believing in "the rule of law" as in "let's follow these written rules literally instead of arbitrarily interpreting them to suit our current desires and then priding ourselves on having and following great laws" is rather small; I'm not sure if it's good or bad...)
  - newman314 11y ago
    Depends if it's a good or bad law. I think we have seen plenty of examples of both but the downside of a bad law is significantly more injurious. I think sometimes we fail to appreciate just how much a bad law affects an individual because it's abstracted away or "collateral damage" Opinion also sways what gets prosecuted. This cuts both ways in that the prosecutor wants to appear tough on law or favors can be had because of "affluenza" etc. Neither is right and I do believe good laws need to be applied consistently.
wfo 11y ago
Much of this trial is being held in the court of public opinion. If the FBI does not win this case, there will be a massive push to pass a law giving the FBI these rights, which requires popular support. The FBI have wisely decided to exploit a tragedy to push through their assault on rights, and to use the families of the victims as a weapon to garner sympathy. One person has decided he doesn't want his tragedy exploited, and is brave enough to say that out loud. That's a huge deal.
matt4077 11y ago
The West Wing's excellent take on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrap9ljIVWk&feature=youtu.be&t=120 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrap9ljIVWk&feature=youtu.be...
mc32 11y ago
I agree. This should be a matter of law rather than what victims or survivors think. Likely if you polled all the victims most would side with the FBI. But its no surprise either side trots out its popular supporters when convenient.
jahewson 11y ago
The FBI has requested that the families of the victims be able to submit amicus briefs to the court regarding this case. So the judge will literally be reading their statements. This is a somewhat questionable practice, as this particular case will be decided as a matter of law, which is really only supposed to be about looking at the letter of the law, past cases, and the actions of the FBI with respect to these. So, you're right, it's not relevant but it's also not irrelevant, especially as it undermines the FBI's narrative.
nickik 11y ago
Yeah but its also a democracy. So public opinions matter in the long run.

by yread 11y ago

Why is it important what do the survivors of the attack think? Justice system is supposed to be objective - we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer.

mhurron 11y ago

> we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer. Ya, we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Justice system should try to settle matters first, be objective second, and deliver retribution third - in fall-thru fashion. So yes, there are bounds where you have to ask the victim. Often you don't even have case when victim decides to settle (not in cases of murder obviously).

Chirael 11y ago

I personally don't care, but the public might, and since the FBI seemed to cherry pick this opportunity to push the issue when public opinion might be more favorable to its request, it's nice to see something that counters it - even if only in the sphere of public opinion

imron 11y ago

Because the director of the FBI said one one of the reasons they were pursuing this was so they could look the families of the victims in the eye and say they'd done all they could to bring them justice. If the families say, actually, we'd rather you didn't do this, then that makes that particular argument less effective.

white-flame 11y ago
That's purely a marketing & power play statement, not one of meaningful decision making.
- msbarnett 11y ago
  Sure. But this battle between the FBI and Apple is at least as much a PR and Political battle as it is a legal battle. The FBI's proposed interpretation of the AWA's powers is going to be a tough sell to appellate courts, as far as I can see. Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. And if that doesn't work, they're hoping to provoke enough outrage when Apple wins that congress is nudged into giving them the powers they want.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. Insofar as there is a political/PR battle, I think its just as likely that they want to lose publicly and use that to reinforce moves under way for getting specific new authority legislated. It's perhaps not coincidental that the various All-Writs Acts cases all came up after discussion of Congress adopting rules regulating provision of consumer end-to-end encryption.
    - npunt 11y ago
      From the statements thus far, it seems that the FBI has neither given much thought to unintended consequences such as foreign governments demands for similar access, nor been able to stay on message whether this is 'just for one phone' or for many. If the idea is to lose the case, which it could possibly be, they've executed that plan poorly because its now a PR fiasco. To be clear, I'm assuming when you say 'lose' you mean the case, not lose the PR battle. The latter is of course always a bad idea when you want to get your way.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  So it's good to undermine that marketing bullshit, right?
ghayes 11y ago
Plus, the families of victims are often discussed in murder cases. It doesn't change the ability of the government to prosecute, but it's informative to the feelings of those most effective.

maxxxxx 11y ago

I also find this strange but it's common in the US. The families of crime victims often have a say.

kiba 11y ago
They already have too much sympathy because they are victims. Nobody cares about the assailants. So, they get longer sentence and less help. What are they going to do when they're out there in the street?

alanwatts 11y ago

At a high level, the justice system has never been objective, at least in regards to the poor and minority groups.

dmix 11y ago

The whole bourgeoning field of legal thought called "Restorative justice" is questioning the logic of pursuing justice for justice sake. Ignoring the victims wants while prioritizing the wills of career-minded prosecutors and the cynical world-view of law enforcement. To me that sounds broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

_yosefk 11y ago
Erm... you totally ought to ignore the stated "desires" of victims when, say, going after a murderer, who may threaten the surviving relatives so that they say they don't want persecution. There are pretty good reasons for criminals being sued by the state for some crimes and by the victim in others (I don't have a source but I'd use "economic analysis of law" to find some of the sources that try to approach this issue systematically.) On the other hand, since in reality the rule of law is often way weaker than the rule of, say, public opinion, or bribes, etc. etc., it of course matters a lot what the victim thinks; if one thinks that the whole purpose of the FBI is to sway the public opinion to gain power, then of course the way to counter this is to sway the public opinion in the opposite direction, and the public will care about the victim's opinion. (In general, it feels that the share of the population truly believing in "the rule of law" as in "let's follow these written rules literally instead of arbitrarily interpreting them to suit our current desires and then priding ourselves on having and following great laws" is rather small; I'm not sure if it's good or bad...)
- newman314 11y ago
  Depends if it's a good or bad law. I think we have seen plenty of examples of both but the downside of a bad law is significantly more injurious. I think sometimes we fail to appreciate just how much a bad law affects an individual because it's abstracted away or "collateral damage" Opinion also sways what gets prosecuted. This cuts both ways in that the prosecutor wants to appear tough on law or favors can be had because of "affluenza" etc. Neither is right and I do believe good laws need to be applied consistently.

wfo 11y ago

Much of this trial is being held in the court of public opinion. If the FBI does not win this case, there will be a massive push to pass a law giving the FBI these rights, which requires popular support. The FBI have wisely decided to exploit a tragedy to push through their assault on rights, and to use the families of the victims as a weapon to garner sympathy. One person has decided he doesn't want his tragedy exploited, and is brave enough to say that out loud. That's a huge deal.

matt4077 11y ago

The West Wing's excellent take on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrap9ljIVWk&feature=youtu.be&t=120 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrap9ljIVWk&feature=youtu.be...

mc32 11y ago

I agree. This should be a matter of law rather than what victims or survivors think. Likely if you polled all the victims most would side with the FBI. But its no surprise either side trots out its popular supporters when convenient.

jahewson 11y ago

The FBI has requested that the families of the victims be able to submit amicus briefs to the court regarding this case. So the judge will literally be reading their statements. This is a somewhat questionable practice, as this particular case will be decided as a matter of law, which is really only supposed to be about looking at the letter of the law, past cases, and the actions of the FBI with respect to these. So, you're right, it's not relevant but it's also not irrelevant, especially as it undermines the FBI's narrative.

nickik 11y ago

Yeah but its also a democracy. So public opinions matter in the long run.