Erase Our Lives

Isabelle Reed

Arizona State University

“There is no way a judge can stay immune to intensely moving statements… victim

impact statements shouldn’t be read during the trial to prevent biases from being formed”
 1

(Berlins, 2016). With this logic, we might as well just take out the victim. Why let the victim

even be at the trial if their rights are being taken...right? Besides, they do not deserve their

human right to fight for their justice anymore. There should not even be a trail. Let's take out

everything: no first-hand accounts, no victim impact statements, and no family members sharing

their heartbreak caused by the defendant. The absolute last thing we want is the real story getting

out. People often form biases against good people, so that would make sense for victim impact

statements to be taken out of our judicial system. We may as well let the defendant talk to the

judge, let them share about their childhood, their kids, and how hard school was for them

growing up, but not even bring up their crime or the effects on the population. At this rate, the

murderer should be allowed to walk out the door. If there is no first-hand account or family

account, it is like the murder never really happened because their story is not told; so basically, it

did not happen.

My Uncle Mark was murdered nearly seven years ago. My family lost a brother, a son, a

father, an uncle, and a friend. My uncle was a father to eight kids, two of whom were twins he

had seven years before the incident. In a matter of minutes, my cousins all lost their father

because of a “great member of society.” Craig Lightner was the man who took my uncle Mark's

life. Lightner had hired Mark for a dive off Catalina Island in Southern California that left Mark

dead. Lightner had Mark dive for all of the fish he wanted before turning Mark’s oxygen off

when he was at the bottom of the ocean. Lightner accidentally allowed Mark to suffocate to

death. When his body floated back up to the surface, Lightner beat Mark with his own oxygen

tank because he forgot that that makes people upset sometimes. Lightner then allowed Mark to

sink all the way back down to the bottom of the cold dark ocean for 15 more minutes before

calling the Coast Guards. When the Coast Guards arrived they found his body at the bottom of
 2

the ocean; they then proceeded to ask Lightner how long Mark had been out of contact. Lightner

replied, “15 minutes” when it really had been 45 minutes. The Coast Guards worked on Mark’s

body for 45 minutes before calling time of death; they were confused as to why they could not

get an experienced diver back. The entire time, Lightner forgot the situation he had at hand,

ignoring the Coast Guards and sitting there on his phone while my uncle's body laid there.

I am just wondering why my pain did not go away when it was decided that the real story

would not be disclosed. My family somehow is angry and in pain too, mostly because they lost

parts of their hearts. If they can take my voice, they should take away my pain too. Failing to

discolse this murder takes away the murder...does it not? It takes away Mark’s celebration of life;

it takes away his existence. Where is the line drawn; does it stop after taking away his kids and

all their pain? What about his wife, who was widowed and left to raise eight kids by herself?

Maybe the whole family should just be erased so that we do not have to fight for our justice

anymore. We should get rid of murderers and their families that have to go through all this pain

and suffering?

I guess we do not do that because it is not logical. That is not how life works; we get

voices in court and have freedom of speech according to The Constitution, but we cannot tell our

stories or share our hurt. Where is the justice for eight kids that woke up one day and lost their

father? Nobody gets to take away their story and nobody gets to tell them that they do not hurt.

We should all be allowed to share our points of view and fight for our justice! That is what

victim impact statements do; they allow people to have a voice and to have an opportunity to

fight for their justice. They do not create the bias that judges can. Everything must be taken into

account, the full story, the hurt of a victim, and the moving statements about how the defendant

changed them forever.

 3

References:

Berlins, M. (2006, December 04). Marcel Berlins: Why victim impact statements should be axed.

Retrieved March 11, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com