A Little Clarification on the Stallworth Sentencing

One of the explanations I keep hearing about why Donte Stallworth got a lighter sentence is that the victim's family took a civil settlement instead of pushing for criminal charges. I heard explanation a lot and it upsets me because it is misleading and it impliedly makes the victim's family look money grubbing while it casts the prosecution as helpless to do anything after the family had settled. This is not necessarily the case. Criminal law is not really set up just for the victims but rather is supposed to punish the offender on behalf of society. Civil law, where one sues the wrongdoer for damages, is designed to compensate the victim for the loss. If you read case names of criminal cases or even if you just watch Law and Order you will see cases with names like State v. Defendant or People v. Defendant while in civil cases it is Plaintiff v. Defendant. This is because the prosecutor does not represent the victim, she represents the interests of the people of the state.

Of course, most prosecutors do consult with the victim and listen to how the victim feels because the vicitm is the person most affected by the crime. However, the prosecutor is not bound by the victim's decision not to push for further charges. It might make for a more difficult case to have to call the victim to the stand against her will but it is not impossible. So while the victim's decision is a big factor, it is not the ultimate factor in deciding whether or not to seek a higher penalty. Writers and talk show hosts should be more careful in addressing this issue because the prevailing theory is a little misleading and unfair to the victims and too generous to the prosecution.

One more thing: When we look at big stories like this we tend to compare each case to the other to weigh the fairness (i.e. Michael Vick got a hasher sentence than a man who killed another human). Our legal system isn't really set up to work that way. We try, at least, to view each case individually. It really shouldn't matter what happened in another jurisdiction under a different set of facts. The more appropriate analysis is whether the punishment was fair in each particular case.