Victim impact statement

Last updated

A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.

Contents

Overview

One purpose of the statement is to allow the person or persons most directly affected by the crime to address the court during the decision making process. It is seen to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim. From the victim's point of view it is regarded as valuable in aiding their emotional recovery from their ordeal. It has also been suggested they may confront an offender with the results of their crime and thus aid rehabilitation.

Another purpose of the statement is to inform a court of the harm suffered by the victim if the court is required to, or has the option of, having regard to the harm suffered by the victim in deciding the sentence.

In cases of crimes resulting in death, the right to speak is extended to family members. In some jurisdictions there are very different rules on how victim impact statements from family members may be regarded. This is because it is seen as unprincipled that different punishments for death are given according to the how much the victim is missed, or conversely that someone's death is relatively less harmful if they have no family. In the circumstance of death, some jurisdictions have described victim impact statements from family members as "irrelevant" to sentencing but not "unimportant" to the process: they are valued for restorative purposes but cannot differentiate punishment for causing death.

In general terms, the person making the statement is allowed to discuss specifically the direct harm or trauma they have suffered and problems that have resulted from the crime, such as loss of income. Some jurisdictions allow for attaching medical and psychiatric reports that demonstrate harm to the victim. They can also discuss the impact the crime has had on their ambitions or plans for the future, and how this also impacted their extended family.

Some jurisdictions permit statements to express what they deem to be an appropriate punishment or sentence for the criminal. Others expressly forbid any proposal or suggestion on punishment or sentencing. Among other reasons, this is because the sentencing process is solely the domain of the judge who considers many more factors than harm to victims. Allowing suggestions on punishment or sentence can create a false hope of the eventual sentence and undermine the notion of restorative justice.

In civil cases, a victim impact statement may be used to determine how much is awarded to the plaintiff. [1] [ additional citation(s) needed ]

United States

The first such statement in the United States was presented in 1976 in Fresno, California, and was passed as law in California in 1982, because of Doris Tate's concern that any members of the Manson family cult that killed her daughter, Sharon Tate, in 1969 might obtain parole. [2]

In 1982, the Final Report of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime recommended that "judges allow for, and give appropriate weight to, input at sentencing from victims of violent crime." In 1992, the United States Attorney General released 24 recommendations to strengthen the criminal justice system's treatment of crime victims. [3] The Attorney General endorsed the use of victim impact statements and stated that judges should "provide for hearing and considering the victims' perspective at sentencing and at any early release proceedings."

In 1991, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a victim impact statement in the form of testimony was allowed during the sentencing phase of a trial in Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991). It ruled that the admission of such statements did not violate the Constitution and that the statements could be ruled as admissible in death penalty cases.

By 1997, 44 of the American states allowed the presentation of victim impact statements during its official process, although until 1991 these statements were held as inadmissible in cases where the death penalty was sought.

The law varies in different states, and while most states allow statements to be made during the sentencing phase of the trial, Indiana and Texas allow for statements to also be made after sentencing.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the statement is known as a Victim Personal Statement (VPS). For crimes that affect businesses, it is called an Impact Statement for Business (ISB). [4] The VPS was introduced in England and Wales in 1996 under the Victim's Charter. [5] Evidence shows that it has been inconsistently applied at the sentencing stage with less than half of victims being given the opportunity to provide such a statement. [6]

Australia

The State of South Australia enacted law in 1988 specifically providing for Victim Impact Statements in the sentencing process, and other States followed with legislation that either provides specifically or generally for the tendering of victim impact statements as part of the sentencing process. [7] [8]

Among current issues with victim impact statements is their relative newness and a lack of research into their actual effectiveness against their theoretical goals. There are occasionally legal issues surrounding the admissibility of facts in a victim impact statement that are materially adverse to an offender.

In the State of Queensland, the Director of Public Prosecution guidelines require prosecutors to remove inappropriate or inflammatory material from Victim Impact Statements prior to them being submitted before a court to prevent any such issues.

Finland

In Finland, the victim has a right to recommend a punishment different from the one recommended by the prosecution. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, even if the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felony</span> Serious crime

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punishment</span> Imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome

Punishment, commonly, is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority—in contexts ranging from child discipline to criminal law—as a response and deterrent to a particular action or behavior that is deemed undesirable or unacceptable. It is, however, possible to distinguish between various different understandings of what punishment is.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice</span> Justice to those who have committed crimes

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions. Goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and the prisons system.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to criminal justice:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Retributive justice</span> Type of punishment

Retributive justice is a legal punishment that requires the offender to receive a punishment for a crime proportional and similar to its offense.

Transformative justice is a series of practices and philosophies designed to create change in social systems. Mostly, they are alternatives to criminal justice in cases of interpersonal violence, or are used for dealing with socioeconomic issues in societies transitioning away from conflict or repression. Other fields of practice have adopted transformative justice, including to address groups' work on other social issues and climate justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restorative justice</span> Restitution with input from victims and offenders

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that aims to repair the harm done to victims. In doing so, practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the process, and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines</span> Rules for sentencing convicts in the U.S. federal courts system

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors or infractions.

Articles related to criminology and law enforcement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile court</span> Court to try minors for legal offenses

A juvenile court, also known as young offender's court or children's court, is a tribunal having special authority to pass judgements for crimes that are committed by children who have not attained the age of majority. In most modern legal systems, children who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults that have committed the same offense.

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A few states continued to have child rape statutes that authorized the death penalty. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the court expanded Coker, ruling that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve intentional homicide or crimes against the State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American juvenile justice system</span> Aspect of American justice system

The American juvenile justice system is the primary system used to handle minors who are convicted of criminal offenses. The system is composed of a federal and many separate state, territorial, and local jurisdictions, with states and the federal government sharing sovereign police power under the common authority of the United States Constitution. The juvenile justice system intervenes in delinquent behavior through police, court, and correctional involvement, with the goal of rehabilitation. Youth and their guardians can face a variety of consequences including probation, community service, youth court, youth incarceration and alternative schooling. The juvenile justice system, similar to the adult system, operates from a belief that intervening early in delinquent behavior will deter adolescents from engaging in criminal behavior as adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Howard Zehr</span> American criminologist

Howard J. Zehr is an American criminologist. Zehr is considered to be a pioneer of the modern concept of restorative justice.

Restorative practices is a social science that studies how to improve and repair relationships between people and communities. The purpose is to build healthy communities, increase social capital, decrease crime and antisocial behavior, repair harm and restore relationships. It ties together research in a variety of social science fields, including education, psychology, social work, criminology, sociology, organizational development and leadership. Restorative practices are a tool that have been growing in popularity since the early 2000s, but researchers still struggle to define restorative practices as a whole.

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Payne narrowed two of the Courts' precedents: Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989).

Lawrence W. Sherman is an American experimental criminologist and police educator who is the founder of evidence-based policing.

South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial only if it directly relates to the "circumstances of the crime." This case was later overruled by the Supreme Court decision in Payne v. Tennessee.

The legal system in the United Arab Emirates is based on civil law, and Sharia law in the personal status matters of Muslims and blood money compensation. Personal status matters of non-Muslims are based on civil law. The UAE constitution established a federal court system and allows all emirates to establish local courts systems. The emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah have local court systems, while other emirates follow the federal court system. Some financial free trade zones in Abu Dhabi and Dubai have their own legal and court systems based on English common law; local businesses in both emirates are allowed to opt-in to the jurisdiction of common law courts for business contracts.

References

  1. ↑ "STUDENT ARTICLE: VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS: A MODIFIED PERSPECTIVE". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04.
  2. ↑ "Today in History: The First Victim Impact Statement". PAAR. 24 February 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  3. ↑ "Recommendations for State Criminal Justice Systems" (PDF). Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  4. ↑ "Victim Personal Statement". GOV.UK. 13 September 2018. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
  5. ↑ Roberts, Julian V.; Manikis, Marie (October 2011). Victim Personal Statements (PDF). Justice (Report). University of Oxford. Retrieved 21 August 2023.
  6. ↑ Roberts, Julian V.; Manikis, Marie (2012). "Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey". Criminology & Criminal Justice. 13 (3): 245–261. doi:10.1177/1748895812452281. S2CID   74396913. SSRN   2869373 . Retrieved 21 August 2023.
  7. ↑ "Victim Impact Statements". Government of South Australia. 4 December 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  8. ↑ Erez, Edna. "Victim Impact Statements" (PDF). Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  9. ↑ Rikosuhritoimikunnan mietintö 19.6.2001
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.