'If it's broke, don't fix it" might sum up department of justice policy on the rights of victims of crime. Victim impact statements have already proved to be a running sore on the judicial body. Now, instead of being cauterised, they are to be extended, so in future they will seep out and contaminate the principles of justice even more treacherously than they do now.

Justice minister Dermot Ahern on Tuesday announced victims of non-fatal offences against the person will now be allowed to have their say in court too. The act includes threats to kill or cause harm, false imprisonment, harassment, abduction of a child, and endangering traffic.

Before this, only victims of violent crime and relatives of murder or manslaughter victims were allowed make a statement, and heaven knows that has been trouble enough. Hardly anyone will need reminding of the furore caused by Majella Holohan's victim impact statement after Wayne O'Donoghue had been convicted of the manslaughter of her son in 2006. Remember, too, the aftershocks caused by Mr Justice Paul Carney when, in response, he set out the following year his misgivings about the use of victim impact statements. Injured victims can abuse the absolute privilege of a courtroom to annihilate what little remains of a defendant's reputation, and with it, any prospect of rehabilitation. It may not happen often, but it happens often enough.

That is one important objection to victim impact statements, but it is not the most important. The most important is that justice is supposed to be the prerogative of the justice system, not of victims. If you commit a crime, you are prosecuted by the DPP on behalf of your entire community, not just your victim. The idea is that you have faith in this system. If you don't, that's another story. The government and judiciary, all aboard the victims' rights bandwagon, keep talking about "putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system". Naturally, victims should be protected, supported, counselled and kept informed, but they should not be at the heart of the criminal justice system. At the risk of sloganeering, what should be at the heart of the criminal justice system is justice.

Another objection is that these statements are submitted before sentencing, instead of after, so that judges may be influenced by them. Justice is supposed to be blind, remember? It's not supposed to matter to a judge whether the victim was a kind and witty charity worker with 50 grandchildren, or a loveless recluse, or even, yes, a pederast.

Then there is the hand-wringing tabloid drivel that victim impact statements give rise to. The entirety of a criminal trial is conducted with due regard to evidence, objectivity and reason. Then at the last minute comes relief for those bored reporters who resist complexity in all its forms. The victim impact statement supplies feelings, feelings and more feelings for the media to feast on.

Perhaps the most invidious aspect of victim impact statements is that some are "better" than others. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) offers tips for preparing a good one, with helpful examples to choose from, such as: "Every morning when I wake up, I remember that [insert name of daughter] will not be in her chair at the breakfast table and that I no longer will need to buy Fruit Loops, her favourite cereal."

They don't mention social class, but ideally, in presenting your statement, you should try to be corn-fed, eloquent, confident and in touch with your feelings. Be composed but carry a damp, clean handkerchief. Judges are human too: be attractive. Oh, and don't be afraid of overstatement: Bernie Madoff's victims got away with comparing themselves to casualties of the Holocaust.

If you can't read or write, or if you come from the honourable agricultural tradition of not talking about your feelings, get some schooling. If you've been able to put the thing behind you, well, good for you, but don't mention that. If the person whose loss you are protesting was just that tiny bit less than a saint, and you cannot tell a lie, then learn to tell a lie.

Now, with the victim impact remit being extended, there's a slippery slope around here somewhere. At the bottom of it is someone reading three pages into court on how "devastated" they were when their Louis Vuitton golf bag was stolen from the Lexus. Also down that way is an unruly mob yelling, "Feelings trump principle any day."

Frightened of Rabbittes: Why FG is Bishop Brennan

John Gormley describes Labour as "the Fr Ted of Irish politics", unlocking a whole freightyard of clunky jokes. What was Gormley thinking, bringing Fr Ted into it and giving us so much to play with?

Fianna Fáil is by rights the Fr Ted of Irish politics, because of the money that has been "just resting" in people's bank accounts from time to time (at least those who had bank accounts). But as Ted is taken, Fianna Fáil will have to be Fr Jack instead, just for the drunken feckiness.

Fine Gael has to be Bishop Brennan, for being universally loathed and frightened of Rabbittes. No one is Mrs Doyle: no one in politics is that zealous or long-suffering. Well, Joe Higgins maybe.

And the Greens? Bless them, they are Fr Dougal, for not being able to tell the difference between issues that are small and issues that are far away.

etynan@tribune.ie
Diarmuid Doyle is on leave