NewsRecord Weekly Publication

Friendly Observer

By Arthur Keefe

Crimes against the public

I was speaking to a policeman recently, who was very frustrated that after a long period of investigation, no prosecution in relation to a murder was to take place. The reason appeared to be that no aggrieved third party was prepared to come forward to initiate such action.

I was puzzled by this and by similar stories I have heard many times in the past when serious offenders walk free despite wide public belief in their guilt, even if this has not been considered by a court of law.

Of course, if key witnesses will not testify, often because of fear of reprisals, then a prosecution is unlikely to succeed. However, witness protection schemes in the USA and Europe can deal with this and if intimidation occurs, this itself is a serious crime warranting a prison term.

In the above cases, the lack of witness and evidence were not the main issues, but the reluctance of victims or a third party, such as a relative, to become involved at all. This is understandable, as even if intimidation is not the concern, the whole process can be very stressful.

However, unlike a civil case (such as a land dispute), it should not be the victim who is the one responsible for initiating the action, but the State. Criminal prosecutions are undertaken in the name of "The People" as a crime is action against the law of the State, not just the victim.

A murder harms a victim, but it frightens and threatens us all. Him or her today, who tomorrow? A burglary elsewhere today, maybe my house next.

The responsibility for deciding to prosecute has to be taken in the public interest, obviously weighing the chances of success, but not based on the preferences of the victim.

Another aspect of this is the widespread practice of perpetrators (or their friends and families) paying compensation to the victim in order to stop a prosecution. The consequence of this is that rich people can effectively buy immunity for criminal acts, including murder.

When the payment represents a price for silence of a witness, this should be treated as a criminal act itself, as it interferes with the process of justice, and is akin to intimidation.

Even if not tied to a vow of silence, there is no basis for seeing compensation as an alternative to prosecution. It should be in addition. The obligation to obey the law of the land is not removed by payment to a victim.

I recently discussed this with a judge. He acknowledged the truth of my argument, but offered his own view that payment was often what the victim both wanted and needed.

In addition, he argued that the court system here was hardly able to handle the volume of cases it currently has, and local 'deals' were a way of settling matters quickly with a degree of satisfaction for victims. He did not say whether crimes such as murder or rape should be dealt with in this way but assault or damage to property presumably could be.

It is a pragmatic approach which may be necessary in the local situation and where a victim is compensated for monetary loss, this may be sufficient. However, it leaves the question open as to whether a legal system where the rich can buy immunity and where cases as serious as murder are not prosecuted is acceptable.

Mediation and compensation at a low and minor level has merit. Murderer and serious offenders escaping jail because they can buy immunity is deeply worrying.