Bill should provide closure for families

If any of my family members were ever the victim of a violent crime, I would see it as my mission to voice my feelings to the court trying the perpetrator. \nIndiana courts follow the guideline that the choice to allow a victim's family to address a court in a capital case is up to the presiding judge. But recently, a bill was proposed in the Indiana House that would guarantee families of victims the right to speak to the court.\nBill 1056 was developed in response to the abduction, rape and murder of Franklin College student Kelly Eckart. During the sentencing, the Eckart family was not permitted to present a statement to the court on how the ordeal impacted their lives.\nBill 1056 was written in response to this situation and is nicknamed "Kelly's Law." Presently, the bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and awaits a vote in the Indiana Senate. The bill would provide a chance for families of victims to gain a sense of closure regarding their tragedy. \nThe families do not even speak directly to the jury chosen to try the case. Instead, families address the judge, after the jury has returned its verdict and before the judge chooses to accept or reject a jury's suggestion for a punishment. \nCritics have suggested that allowing the families of murder victims to speak would give the convicted person fuel to file an appeal by the emotion inserted into a process that should be strictly governed by the letter of law. \nIn capital cases, state statues provide strict parameters, aggravating and mitigating factors, under which to determine if the death penalty is justified. \nThe impact on the victim's family is seldom if ever one of these factors. While such testimony might provide a healing experience for the family, it has no place in determining whether capitol punishment should be imposed, critics say. \nUnfortunately, an amendment to "Kelly's Law" could negate the bill's true purpose. After being sent through the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code, certain wording was modified. \nWhen first introduced, the bill read, "In making the final determination of the sentence after receiving the jury's recommendation, the court shall receive evidence of the crime's impact on members of the victim's family." \nThe "shall" replaced the word "may" in the original law that had given the presiding judge the option of not hearing the statement. While in committee, the wording to Bill 1056 was again changed to read, "a representative of the victim's family and friends may present a statement regarding the impact of the crime on family and friends." As long as the bill uses the word "may," there will be a way to prevent family and friends from speaking. \nIf a trial judge favors the defendants, or fears his decision might be appealed, he might look at this wording as a way of preventing any statements from the victims' relatives and friends. \nPerhaps if the judge favors victims' rights, he might take advantage of the wording and allow family and friends' statements to be read. \nThe use of the word "may" does nothing to aid the rights of families. It effectively sends Bill 1056 in a circle back to the original law. If this law is to have any effect on trials in Indiana, and help families alleviate the pain involved with the crime, the bill needs stronger language guaranteeing the right to speak.