Communication in Sentencing: Exploring the Expressive Function of Victim Impact Statements

Abstract

The role of the victim in the sentencing process continues to generate controversy among scholars and practitioners across many jurisdictions. In this article we address some of the persistent objections to allowing victim input into sentencing. By placing the debate on victim input within its historical context, we suggest that the movement to provide victims with a voice has been derailed, as the communicative model of victim input -originally envisioned by the reform movement as its justification -was replaced by a model that stresses the impact of VIS on sentencing. We argue that much of the lingering opposition to victim input rights has been animated by this 'impact' model, which we argue is theoretically misconceived, empirically unsupported and at odds with major sentencing aims. We reintroduce the communicative model, which reflects the original intent and purpose of the victim reform concerning input, elaborating on its advantages for victims and offenders. We then provide two examples from the field to illustrate the therapeutic benefits of the model for both victims and offenders. We conclude with a call to reassess current theory and practice regarding victim integration in sentencing and offer some policy recommendations regarding the optimal way to integrate the voice of the victim at sentencing.at Uniwersytet Warszawski on June 15, 2015 irv.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a Victim Impact Statement

“…and the effectiveness of different victimoriented measures (for example, Chalmers et al, 2007;Roberts and Erez, 2010;Roberts, 2009;Sanders et al, 2001;Sherman and Strang, 2007).…”

Alles naar wens? Observaties naar aanleiding van het conceptwetsvoorstel ter aanvulling van het spreekrecht voor slachtoffers en nabestaanden in het strafproces

“…Naast het spreekrecht is er ook de mogelijkheid voorafgaand aan de zitting een schriftelijke slachtofferverklaring (hierna: SSV, ook wel Victim Impact Statement genoemd) op te (doen) stellen. Daarvan wordt naar schatting 3000 keer per jaar gebruikgemaakt (Leferink & Vos, 2008;Lens c.s., 2010 5 Kamerstukken II 2011-2012Kamerstukken II 2011-2012Kamerstukken II 2011-2012 (Roberts & Erez, 2004;Wemmers & Cyr, 2004). Duidelijk is wel dat participatoir ingestelde slachtoffers het op prijs stellen van meet af aan te worden betrokken bij de afhandeling van het delict.…”

“…Rechters geven echter wel aan dat deze flexibele houding moet worden bezien tegen de achtergrond van de wens gelegenheid te geven tot victim voice gericht op procescontrole; er is geen sprake van een bereidheid de behoefte aan uitkomstcontrole te faciliteren (Kool c.s., 2006;Leferink, 2008;Lens c.s., 2010). Dit stemt overeen met bevindingen elders, waaruit eveneens blijkt dat de impact van victim voice via Victim Impact Statements beperkt is en feitelijk wordt geneutraliseerd (Erez & Tondonoato, 1997;Roberts & Erez, 2004;Kool & Verhage, 2014 …”

‘Cooling out’ victims of crime: Managing victim participation in the sentencing process in a superior sentencing court

“…Despite not being relevant to determining penalty in NSW, VISs do serve an expressive function that is particularly important from a victim's perspective (Roberts and Erez, 2010, Ministry of Justice, 2008, Department of Justice, 2009R v FD;R v JD, viii Sully J identified that expressive function as according:…”