CRIME VICTIMS' IMPACT COUNTS FOR SOMETHING

The United States is a nation where the rights of citizens are protected. Some of the frustration of those who abide by laws stems from a perception that too much legal protection is afforded perpetrators of crimes and not enough is given to victims. The U.S. Supreme Court has made a ruling that should soften this perception; we applaud the justices for permitting a more widespread use of victim-impact evidence.

This high-court decision last week was overshadowed by the news hours later that Justice Thurgood Marshall was resigning. This case, however, deserves proper attention. It involved a Tennessee killing in which a Tennessee mother and 2-year-old child were murdered. The jury, prior to sentencing the killer to the death penalty, was allowed to hear testimony about the victims' lives and the grief endured by surviving family members. The Supreme Court said this testimony was permissible.

In a bitter dissent, Marshall argued that the high court had ignored its own precedents in ruling that victim impact can play a role in judicial deliberation. In doing so, he missed the larger issue: the impact of victims should stand for something. If the lives of people touched by crime have been altered in a significant way, that should count in the determination of punishment. Why keep such information from a jury? What is the judicial good of having them deliberate with incomplete information? Why are prosecutors being handcuffed in trying to establish the full magnitude of a crime?

Victims are fighting back; unlike their assailants, they are doing so through legal means. We are glad to see it. We believe the courts should also see it. We commend this ruling and hope it has a broad influence.