Editorial: Silencing of victims flouts law

Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 | 8:41 a.m.

District Judge Kathy Hardcastle is overstepping her authority every time she refuses to let a qualified victim speak before she sentences someone who has been convicted of a crime. Nevada law is clear: A victim has the right to be heard in court before a sentence is passed. The law, passed by the 1989 Legislature, is also clear about who meets the definition of victim. It says a victim is a person "against whom a crime has been committed" and that the spouse, parent, grandparent, stepparent, natural born child, stepchild or adopted child of that person are also victims. The law goes on to say that the "court shall allow" a victim, either in person or by way of a representative, to "reasonably express any views concerning the crime, the person responsible, the impact of the crime on the victim and the need for restitution."

To ensure against exactly the type of judicial tampering that is taking place in Hardcastle's courtroom, the Legislature and people of Nevada amended the state constitution to read that victims have the right to be "heard at all proceedings for the sentencing or release of a convicted person after trial."

A glaring example of Hardcastle's snubbing of the law and constitution came last month. A 25-year-old woman wanted to be heard before Hardcastle passed sentence on the man convicted of being intoxicated when he failed to yield at an intersection and drove head-on into her parents' car on Jan. 11. Her father received several broken bones and her mother sustained serious back and internal injuries. Hardcastle ruled that only the injured mother and one other daughter could speak. Afterward, the judge acknowledged that she commonly restricts verbal victim impact statements to one per victim. She justified overruling the law and constitution by saying there isn't enough time to hear all qualified victims.

Sandy Heverly, executive director of STOP DUI, told Sun reporter Erica D. Johnson that she knows of other Clark County judges who have also limited victim impact statements. And Assistant Chief Judge Michael Douglas told Johnson that victim impact statements are "partially up to the court's discretion" due to time constraints. We disagree. If judges want discretion in this matter of statutory and constitutional law, they should appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court for a ruling. Until they have authority to be discretionary, they should obey the law and the constitution as they are written.