Victim impact statements at sentencing: Towards a clearer understanding of their aims

Abstract

The aims of victim impact statements (VIS) can be classified into two main categoriesinstrumental and expressive. These different sorts of aims are associated with different, and often conflicting, sentencing objectives. This article argues that the VIS regime in Canada remains a legal no man's land, with neither its role nor its aims being clearly defined and articulated. Indeed, recent appellate court decisions have shown a number of inconsistencies and conflicts in the instrumental and expressive purposes that VISs in Canada are meant to serve. Further, it is also argued, the proposed legislative amendments under Bill C-32 are not very promising, since this scheme also fails to clearly articulate the aims and rationales behind the statements and behind the proposed changes. It is shown, throughout the article, that VIS regime guidelines and parameters can take different shapes and forms, depending on the aims retained. Moreover, while a dualist scheme that reconciles instrumental and expressive aims may be possible, clarity would be necessary in order to craft adequate parameters. Certainly, more protective measures are necessary if instrumental aims are to be retained. Finally, having laid out the conceptual and foundational grounds required to understand the possible aims of VISs and how these different aims can shape the relevant parameters, the article proceeds by laying out an initial, more normative, proposal for a VIS multi-functional model inspired by evidence-based findings.

The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.

“…The present study answers the call for a more systematic, evidencebased, and ecologically applicable approach to VIS research (Kunst et al, 2021;Manikis, 2015). We examined real-world sentencing rulings, relying on a rich existing repository of rulings to create our data file.…”

La relation entre le judiciaire et les victimes dans le contexte de la détermination de la peine au Canada : un enjeu pour l’évolution du droit criminel

“…Insistons sur le fait que notre attention se centre davantage sur le système judiciaire canadien que sur le système de droit criminel dans son ensemble. À l'heure actuelle, nous avons encore du mal à comprendre la portée de ce nouvel encadrement de la victime sur le processus de détermination de la peine du système judiciaire (Manikis 2015a;Manikis 2015b). Cauchie et Sauvageau (2013) ont pour leur part exploré ces questions sous l'angle du « closure ».…”

Making sense of the victim’s role in clemency decision making

“…Ashworth, 1993;Bandes, 1996;Dubber, 1993;Hoyle, 2011), even if it has become less prevalent over the years (e.g. Manikis, 2015;Roberts, 2009;Sarat, 2004). The role of victims in parole decision making remains even more contentious, given a perceived conflict between typical victims' interests and the functions that conditional release is meant to play (Roberts, 2009: 386).…”