"Rights of the victimw" does indeed open many doors. Who is the victim when a Sikh, for instance, murders a daughter who has shamed him? In my view the only real victims of murder are the murdered. I don't mind the term being extended for convenience, in the absence of anything more precise, and I'm happy for impact statements to be taken into account when sentencing, but I don't think these secondary victims should be accorded rights above anyone else.

No-one deprived through murder of a friend or relative can ever be compensated. Allowing such people a say in any punishment (as is the case in some parts of the world) removes consistency. One so-called victim might be compassionate; another vengeance-driven. In a democracy it is surely better that sentencing should be in accord with codes and guidance drafted by elected legislators.

I suspect that Guest# would be looking for vengeance rather than compassion from any involvement of "victims." For my part I take the view that when considering an appropriate response to any crime, in the cold light of day, any question of vengeance should be taken right out of the equation, or we are no better than those we presume to judge and punish.