Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm

Roberts, Julian V.; Manikis, Marie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2869326

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, research surveying legal actors about statements during the pilot phase found few cases included statements (Morgan and Sanders, 1999). Research evaluating statement policies in various countries has reflected consistent findings (see Erez et al, 1997;Leverick et al, 2007;Roberts, 2009;Roberts and Edgar, 2003).…”

Section: Utilization Of the Victim Personal Statement Policymentioning

confidence: 83%

Victim Personal Statements: An analysis of notification and utilization

Mastrocinque

2013

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Victim statement policies are a controversial topic inspiring several decades of debate. Criminal justice systems internationally have implemented diverse types of victim statement policies; however, regardless of the type of policy, literature supports that victims seldom provide statements. Despite these findings, few studies have explored the notification and utilization of these policies. The current study selects the Victim Personal Statement (VPS) policy in England and Wales to evaluate what factors influence whether victims are informed of the VPS, and what factors influence one's decision to provide a VPS by using British Crime Survey (BCS) data. The findings support that several victim, offender, offense, and jurisdictional characteristics influence both notification and utilization of victim statements. The implications for these findings regarding victim statement policies are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Utilization Of the Victim Personal Statement Policymentioning

confidence: 83%

Victim Personal Statements: An analysis of notification and utilization

Mastrocinque

2013

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much has been made of the low rate of cross-examination on the VIS (Prairie Research Associates, 2005), which presumably limits its enormous emotional stress to the few victims whom experience it (Roberts & Edgar, 2006). However, findings also demonstrate that harms claims struggles were often resolved well before the point of cross-examination, and often to the detriment of the original claim.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2006, it was determined that 21% and 8%, respectively, of VISs filed with Provincial and Superior Trial Courts in Alberta, Canada, were not opened by judges (Alberta Justice, 2006). In another study, slightly less than half of Canadian judges reported that the VIS represented a source of unique information relevant to sentencing (Roberts & Edgar, 2006). It is possible these findings were suggestive of judicial disinterest in harms claims outside of testimony.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Victims have seldom participated in VIS schemes at sentencing (Roberts, 2009). Estimates of the number of victims who have submitted a VIS have ranged between 10% and 23% in Canada (Giliberti, 1990; Roberts & Edgar, 2006) and between 15% and 30% internationally (Leverick, Chalmers, & Duff, 2007; Sanders, 1999). Characteristics of a victim most likely to have submitted a VIS at sentencing have included being a woman and/or vulnerable (elderly, a minor, pregnant), victimized at home, or harmed by a known offender or male offender (Erez & Tontodonato, 1990; Meredith & Paquette, 2001).…”

Section: The Victim Impact Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Purposing and Repurposing Harms

Miller

2013

Qual Health Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the victim impact statement (VIS) is to inform judges of victims' crime-related physical, psychological, and financial harms. Findings from interviews with Canadian sexual assault victims, advocates, victim services workers, and prosecutors (N = 37) demonstrated that harm descriptions were manipulated by victims and others in keeping with, and contrary to, VIS design. Victims and prosecutors purposed the VIS to inform court outcomes through harms claims and struggles over those claims. The repurposing of harms claims occurred through practices of strategic disclosure, intended to effect changes in others' behaviors, and harm peddling, the circulation of the VIS in nonsentencing arenas. Victims, adversaries, and criminal justice professionals engaged in harm peddling to obtain compensation, child custody, and parole delay. Implications of purposing and repurposing harms claims include novel opportunities and legal pitfalls for victims, varied responses by judges, and an expansion of social control over victims and offenders.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, it is currently part of sentencing practice in many jurisdictions and considered by some as a source of aggravating factors 1 and useful in understanding the true and total degree of harm inflicted by criminal acts. 2 In addition to victims telling the court about the impact the criminal event had on their lives and those of their families, they may on occasion wish to express their views on sentencing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victims' Mitigating Views in Sentencing Decisions: A Comparative Analysis

Merwe¹,

Skelton²

2014

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the arguments for and against victims" mitigating opinions on sentence. It describes a recent South African appeal case, compares it with a similar New Zealand appeal court judgment, and then investigates the legal position in England and Wales. It appears that, as a general rule, victims" recommendations as to penalty must be avoided.However, unlike in South Africa and New Zealand, the jurisprudence in England and Wales has developed exceptions in this regard when certain categories of victims request a more lenient sentence. Several case studies from England and Wales reveal that, through considering the harms and needs of victims and ameliorating the sentences accordingly, a restorative justice approach is blended with a just deserts requirement for the protection of lower limits in sentencing. This ensures that the principles of proportionality, certainty and consistency are still adhered to. It is concluded that, had the South African court taken proper cognisance of these comparative legal developments, it would, at very least, have created a better precedent by providing guidelines to inform the complex, but important, process of considering victims mitigating opinions in the sentencing process.

show abstract

Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: The Relevance of Ancillary Harm

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Victim Personal Statements: An analysis of notification and utilization

Victim Personal Statements: An analysis of notification and utilization

Purposing and Repurposing Harms

Victims' Mitigating Views in Sentencing Decisions: A Comparative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About