11 July 2008

Whose justice is it anyway? And what is the purpose of the justice system?

I was commenting on the Tony Veitch issue over at Public Address. Russell Brown posted a thoughtful post entitled So Far from Trivial.

This issue has had me thinking like few others news stories recently. Really, it goes to the core of the questions "what is justice?", "Who does the court system serve?" . It also exposes issues of trial by media, and the distortions that widespread publication introduce in the old principle of open justice.

Anyway, here's my initial thoughts on the issue.

I find Tony Veitch likeable and positive onscreen (as opposed to, say, Paul Henry, who puts people down all the time). I avoid One Network News, but will watch for Veitch's segment, so I came into this biased.

Frankly, if I were the partner of a media figure, I suspect I would rather take the money and privacy than the court case. Name suppression doesn't prevent gossip. A court case is hugely stressful. Who wants to spend days, weeks of your life preparing and in court and reliving a "victim" role, rather than moving on?

She's clearly a smart woman, hugely capable given the jobs she's held, and aware of the media. He must have been heading to a meltdown, and I presume she was also smart enough to leave him before the assault so credit to her for that too.

I can well see that she might see little benefit in taking time away from her recovery and career to put energy into a court case, and disclosing personal medical records to strangers in a court room. Negotiating a financial settlement can put you back into a position of power (and if she complained to the police, his career, and financial position would have been ruined. A friend's husband faced a bill of $57,000 to be aquitted) So in her position I'd probably do the same. The best revenge is living well.

That said, there is a public interest in holding people accountable for their actions (in this case must be a large ACC cost too) And it's about more than money. How is justice best served? And do the public interest, and the victim's interests coincide ? The victim's interests and the interest of the public don't, as the public is interested in the double-page spread in Women's Day, and a surrender of privacy. Oddly, private payouts like this can potentially produce the best results for the individual victim.

As for Tony Veitch I believe there is good in almost everyone, that finding compassion within ourselves for both victim and offender will in the long term lead to better outcomes than condemnation, pillory, and punishment. It's easier to feel compassion for someone likeable like Veitch than the "criminal" pilloried on ONN for our evening's infotainment.

I also believe restorative justice usually produces better outcomes, and that prison is best used to protect the public, rather than a place to tuck away social problems. And yet....

When someone snaps and goes madly violent like this, what is the best outcome for all concerned? Are they beyond redemption?

If there were something that a person who snaps, acts atrociously and reaches rock-bottom can do to redeem themselves what is it? A year of therapy? Financial compensation? Contrition?

How far must a victim go against their own immediate interests in the public interest?

I really don't know what to conclude, other than to say, whatever happens to Tony Veitch, I hope Kristen goes on to a wildly successful and happy life and career (please God not including a Women's Day double spread). And I hope Tony redeems himself too.

No comments:

Blog Archive