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

Emily J. Holland
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

一段纪念死罪受害者一生的录像是否可以决定被告的生死?遭受重创的亲人可能会欢迎这一结果,并强调媒体的证据价值。视频可能是传达有关受害者的关键信息以及她的死亡对幸存者造成的巨大影响的唯一途径。它可以让受害者家属更多地出席审判,或者是一种纪念死者的方式。但如果一段视频歪曲了受害者的信息,对被告有偏见,引入偏见,或者以某种方式使审判记录受到怀疑,我们可能会以不同的方式回答这个问题。我们可能会承认,一些受害者影响视频是出于不正当甚至不道德的原因而被接纳的,因此,一些生死决定是以武断的方式做出的。关于什么是适当的受害者影响视频,我认为,虽然法官可以发挥重要的看门人作用,筛选出不相关或不适当偏见的受害者影响材料,但刑事司法界将受益于有关这一问题的更多数据和讨论。在本评论的第一部分中,我将回顾受害者影响视频的法律基础以及州和联邦法院似乎决定其可采性的标准。第二部分将考虑法院是否承认在最高法院Payne诉田纳西州案中宣布的原则中证据不足或证据过度的受害者影响视频。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信