{"title":"电影公司……维护正义吗?澄清受害者影响录像在首都背景下的正确作用","authors":"Emily J. Holland","doi":"10.15779/Z38DP67","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Should a video memorializing the life of a capital crime victim determine whether the defendant lives or dies? Devastated loved ones might welcome this outcome and highlight the medium’s evidentiary value. The video may be the only way to communicate critical information about the victim and the shattering effect her death has upon survivors. It could afford the victim’s family a greater presence at trial or a way to honor the deceased. But where a video misrepresents information about the victim, prejudices the defendant, introduces bias, or somehow throws the trial record into doubt, we might answer the question differently. We might concede that some victim impact videos are being admitted for improper or even unethical reasons, and thus, that some life and death decisions are being made in an arbitrary fashion. With regard to what constitutes an appropriate victim impact video, I contend that while judges can play an important gatekeeper function and screen out victim impact material that is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, the criminal justice community would benefit from more data and discussion on this issue. In Part I of this Comment, I will review the legal foundations of victim impact videos and the criteria by which state and federal courts seem to determine their admissibility. Part II will consider whether courts admit victim impact videos that are under-probative or over-probative of the principles announced in the Supreme Court case Payne v. Tennessee.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moving Pictures . . . Maintaining Justice? Clarifying the Right Role for Victim Impact Videos in the Capital Context\",\"authors\":\"Emily J. Holland\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38DP67\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION Should a video memorializing the life of a capital crime victim determine whether the defendant lives or dies? Devastated loved ones might welcome this outcome and highlight the medium’s evidentiary value. The video may be the only way to communicate critical information about the victim and the shattering effect her death has upon survivors. It could afford the victim’s family a greater presence at trial or a way to honor the deceased. But where a video misrepresents information about the victim, prejudices the defendant, introduces bias, or somehow throws the trial record into doubt, we might answer the question differently. We might concede that some victim impact videos are being admitted for improper or even unethical reasons, and thus, that some life and death decisions are being made in an arbitrary fashion. With regard to what constitutes an appropriate victim impact video, I contend that while judges can play an important gatekeeper function and screen out victim impact material that is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, the criminal justice community would benefit from more data and discussion on this issue. In Part I of this Comment, I will review the legal foundations of victim impact videos and the criteria by which state and federal courts seem to determine their admissibility. Part II will consider whether courts admit victim impact videos that are under-probative or over-probative of the principles announced in the Supreme Court case Payne v. Tennessee.\",\"PeriodicalId\":386851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38DP67\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38DP67","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Moving Pictures . . . Maintaining Justice? Clarifying the Right Role for Victim Impact Videos in the Capital Context
INTRODUCTION Should a video memorializing the life of a capital crime victim determine whether the defendant lives or dies? Devastated loved ones might welcome this outcome and highlight the medium’s evidentiary value. The video may be the only way to communicate critical information about the victim and the shattering effect her death has upon survivors. It could afford the victim’s family a greater presence at trial or a way to honor the deceased. But where a video misrepresents information about the victim, prejudices the defendant, introduces bias, or somehow throws the trial record into doubt, we might answer the question differently. We might concede that some victim impact videos are being admitted for improper or even unethical reasons, and thus, that some life and death decisions are being made in an arbitrary fashion. With regard to what constitutes an appropriate victim impact video, I contend that while judges can play an important gatekeeper function and screen out victim impact material that is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial, the criminal justice community would benefit from more data and discussion on this issue. In Part I of this Comment, I will review the legal foundations of victim impact videos and the criteria by which state and federal courts seem to determine their admissibility. Part II will consider whether courts admit victim impact videos that are under-probative or over-probative of the principles announced in the Supreme Court case Payne v. Tennessee.