Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements

Abstract

Emotional standards and hierarchies in the courtroom may affect judicial reactions to victim impact statements. Based on judicial conversations and courtroom observations in two judicial districts in Minnesota, we suggest that judges contrast emotion with reason in order to maintain control of their courtrooms; when faced with emotional expressions in victim impact statements, judges appreciate expressions of compassion and tolerate expressions of grief but are uncomfortable with expressions of anger. These judicial responses to emotional expression, however, must be contextualized; for example, the judges we spoke with often articulated different reactions to impact statements given by victims of sexual assault, those who are strangers to the perpetrator, and impact statements given by victims of domestic violence, those who are in a relationship with the perpetrator.

Observer reactions to emotional victims of serious crimes: stereotypes and expectancy violations

“…Support from real-life settings for the idea that victims are generally expected (and hence 'prescribed') to express the first class of emotions rather than the second can be found in a series of interviews with US district court judges, conducted by Schuster and Propen (2010). These authors found that judges believe that expressions of grief (especially when related to loss of life but not expressed in an excessive manner) are more appropriate in the setting of the courtroom than expressions of anger.…”

A Sociological Perspective on Emotions in the Judiciary

“…An "emotional regime," defined in the introduction, is comparable to "emotionology" (Fineman, 2010;Schuster & Propen, 2010), but the term regime underscores that discursive knowledge informs the sociocultural construction of these rules (cf. Foucault, 1976).…”

“…The emotion needs to be managed in line with the emotional regime governing the situated interaction (here, the performance of judicial reason) but, as shown by Schuster and Propen (2010), the overall emotional regime of the society in which the court is embedded also matters. One example is the judge being overwhelmed by anger at a lawyer, as related before (Maroney, 2012), signifying an emotion that is external and disruptive of the action focus.…”

Observing judicial work and emotions: using two researchers

“…He describes how the narrative storytelling of lay people conflicts with legal case making. Schuster and Propen (2010) combined judicial conversations with courtroom observations to examine the emotions that victim impact statements bring into the courtrooms and their impact on judicial decision making.…”