Victim impact statements: Don't work, can't work

Criminal Law Review

Volumn , Issue JUNE, 2001, Pages 447-458

  Sanders, Andrew ^a   Hoyle, Carolyn ^a   Morgan, Rod ^a   Cape, Ed ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044528327     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. To avoid muddying the arguments, VOS schemes will not be discussed in this paper. They are discussed, along with the many VIS schemes proliferating in the common law world, in A. Sanders, Taking Account of Victims in the Criminal Justice System: A Review of the Literature (Scottish Office, 1999), Chaps 3 and 5. Further, this article is confined to discussion of VIS only in relation to sentencing.
2. E. Erez, "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Victim? Victim Impact Statements as Victim Empowerment and Enhancement of Justice" [1999] Crim.L.R. 545.
3. A. Ashworth, "Victim's Rights, Defendant's Rights and Criminal Procedure' in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating Victim Perspectives in Criminal Justice (2000).
4. Erez [Crim.L.R.] at 555.
5. A start is made in A. Sanders, "The rights and wrongs of victim participation in criminal justice" (unpublished).
6. Other theoretical contributions, though valuable, are not directed to the concrete problems of adversarial systems. See M. Cavadino and J. Dignan, "Reparation, Retribution and Rights" (1997) 5 Int. Rev. Vict.:23;
7. R. Mackay, "Victimology and Rights Theories" (1996) 4 Int. Rev. Vict. 4:183.
8. Though these are minimal, vague obligations, and the UK has entered a reservation to the UN Declaration. See A. Ashworth, "Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing" [1993] Crim.L.R. 498,
9. Sanders, Crim.L.R. op. cit., Chap. 2.
10. See Ashworth, above (1993) for discussion of the principles, and Sanders, above, Chap. 2 for recent cases. In Perks [2000] Crim.L.R. 606 the CA, whilst confirming that a victim's opinion as to sentence should be ignored, set out procedural requirements governing the reception of evidence of the effects of the offence on the victim.
11. L. Henderson, "The Wrongs of Victim's Rights" (1985) 37 Stanford Univ. L.R. 937;
12. R. Elias, Victims Still: The Political Manipulation of Crime Victims (1993);
13. A. Sarat, "Vengeance, Victims and the Identities of Law" (1997) 6 Social and Legal Studies 6:163. Victim Support, the most influential representative of the victims' movement in the UK, has resisted the temptation to get involved in debates about sentencing, and is cautious regarding VIS.
14. A. Ashworth, [2000], above.
15. Home Office, The Victim's Charter: A Statement of Service Standards for Victims of Crime (1996). The Charter uses the term "Victim Statement" instead of "Victim Impact Statement" because the latter term is usually associated with American VIS which are deliberately aimed at influencing sentence. This reflects the confused objectives of the Victim's Charter experiment, in which it was never decided whether or not this scheme was supposed to affect sentences. For convenience, we refer to "victim statements" as VIS.
16. The details of the schemes, and the methodology and results of the wo evaluations of them, are set out in: C. Hoyle, E. Cape, R. Morgan and A. Sanders, Evaluation of the One Stop Shop and Victim Statement Pilot Projects, Home Office, 1998;
17. R. Morgan and A. Sanders, The Uses of Victim Statements, Home Office, 1999.
18. Both are summarised in C. Hoyle, R. Morgan and A. Sanders, "The Victim's Charter - An Evaluation of Pilot Projects" Home Office Research Findings No. 107, 1999.
19. Ashworth [1993] Home Office Research Findings No. 107, op. cit.
20. Hoyle et. al., Chap. 1; Sanders, Home Office Research Findings No. 107, op. cit.;
21. H. Fenwick: "Procedural 'Rights' of Victims of Crime: Public or Private Ordering of the Criminal Justice Process?" (1997) 60 M.L.R. 317.
22. The offences included in the schemes were domestic burglary, domestic violence, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, sections 18 and 20), sexual assault, robbery, criminal damage over £5,000, racially motivated offences, and attempting or conspiring to commit any of these offences.
23. Some victims gave two or three reasons: Hoyle et al., op. cit., pp.25-7.
24. Hoyle et al., above, p.30.
25. Erez [Crim.L.R.] p.552.
26. P. Tontodonato and E. Erez, "Crime, Punishment and Victim Distress" (1994), 3 Int. Rev. Vict. 33;
27. E. Erez et al., Victim Impact Statements in South Australia: an Evaluation (1994).
28. Hoyle et al., Victim Impact Statements in South Australia: an Evaluation op. cit., p.32.
29. See, for example, C. Gilberti, "Evaluation of Victim Impact Statement Projects in Canada" in G. Kaiser, H. Kury and H-J. Albrecht (eds) Victims and Criminal Justice (1991);
30. R. Davis and B. Smith, "Victim Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction: An Unfulfilled Promise" (1994) 22 Jo of Criminal Justice 1;
31. E. Erez et al., "Victim Harm, Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction with Justice: an Australian Experience" (1997) 5 Int. Rev. Vict. 37.
32. See for example R. Davis and B. Smith, "The Effects of Victim Impact Statements on Sentencing Decisions", (1994) 11 Justice Quarterly 453;
33. M. Henley et al., "The Reactions of Prosecutors and Judges to Victim Impact Statements" (1994) 3 Int. Rev. Vict. 83.
34. See, generally, L. Sebba, Third Parties: Victims and the Criminal Justice System (1996).
35. Erez, (Crim.L.R.) op. cit., drawing on the study reported in E. Erez and L. Rogers: "The Effects of VIS on Criminal Justice Outcomes" (1999) 39 BJ Crim. 216.
36. This is true of all areas of criminal justice, and probably in other areas of public policy too. See, in relation to the police, C. Hoyle, Negotiating Domestic Violence (1998),
37. and in relation to defence lawyers, A. Sanders and L. Bridges, "Solicitors and the Poor" (1990) 140 NLJ 85
38. McConville et al., Standing Accused (1994).
39. R. Davis and B. Smith [1994] Standing Accused op. cit. 11: 453.
40. Cited in S. Moody, 'Victims and Scottish Criminal Justice" (1997) Jurid. Rev. 1.
41. See research cited in H. Fenwick, "Rights of Victims in the Criminal Justice System" [1995] Crim.L.R. 843.
42. This was recognised by MacPherson in The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (1999) Cm 4262.
43. J. Wemmers; "Victims in the Dutch criminal justice system: the effects of treatment on victims' attitudes and compliance" (1995) 3 Int. Rev. Vict. 323.
44. No victims in our study were asked to update their VIS, even though some victims wished to do so (Hoyle et al., Int. Rev. Vict. op. cit.):
45. the system provided this opportunity in principle but not in practice. The Australian and New Zealand systems are a little more successful in securing updates (Erez et al. [1994], above;
46. S. Wallace, Victim Impact Statements (1989), Dept of Justice, Wellington).
47. T. Tyler, "Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice" (1987) 52 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 333.
48. P. Fisher, "Preliminary evaluation results of the victim impact demonstration project in Brooklyn Supreme Court" (1984), ASC Proceedings, p.81-2.
49. Such as the USA and Australia. See Sanders, ASC Proceedings, op. cit., for discussion. The point is acknowledged by Erez herself: E. Erez and L. Rogers [1999] above, p.216.
50. On which, see Hobstaff (1993) 14 Cr.App.R.(S) 605.
51. Hoyle et al., Cr.App.R.(S) op. cit.; E. Erez and L. Rogers [1999] above, p.216. Erez provides a similar explanation for the lack of effect of VIS in most cases.
52. Hoyle et al., Cr.App.R.(S) op. cit., Chap. 4; Morgan and Sanders, above, Chap. 4; Erez et al., above, 1994.
53. Morgan and Sanders, above, Chap. 6.
54. As is required as a result of Perks. See n.7.
55. We are not saying that VIS never affect sentence or indeed other decisions. See Morgan and Sanders, op. cit., Chap. 5 for examples of where they do have an effect. But the perception of most victims, that what they say makes no difference, is largely correct.
56. E. Erez and L. Rogers [1999] op. cit.
57. P. Rock, The Social World of an English Crown Court (1993). Though this research relates explicitly to the Crown Court, there is no reason to think that magistrates courts are different except in matters of detail.
58. Erez et al. [1997] The Social World of an English Crown Court op. cit. 55.
59. Tontodonato and Erez, The Social World of an English Crown Court op. cit.
60. For a general review, see L. Sebba, Third Parties: Victims and the Criminal Justice System (1996) Chap. 4.
61. T. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (1990).
62. J. Gardner, Victims and Criminal Justice (1990),
63. Attorney-General's Dept, South Australia; Dept of Justice, Canada, Victim Impact Statements in Canada (1990).
64. E. Erez et al., [1994] Victim Impact Statements in Canada ( above, p.21.
65. M. Joutsen "Victim participation in proceedings and sentencing in Europe" (1994) 3 Int. Rev. Vict. 57.
66. This discussion of European systems summarises the discussion in A. Sanders, Int. Rev. Vict. op. cit.
67. G. Kaiser, H. Kury and H.-J. Albrecht (eds) Victims and Criminal Justice (1991);
68. W. Pizzi and W. Perron "Crime victims in German courtrooms: A comparative perspective on American problems" (1996) 32 Stanford Journal of International Law 37.
69. G. Saponaro "The victim of crime in the new Italian Code of Criminal Procedure", in E. Viano, (ed.), Victim's Rights and Legal Reforms - International Perspectives (1991).
70. J. Braithwaite "Conditions of Successful Re-Integration Ceremonies" (1994) 34 B.J.Crim. 139.
71. See, for example, A. Morris et al., "Giving Victims a Voice: A New Zealand Experiment" (1993) 32 Howard Journal 304;
72. L. Sherman and H. Strang, Restorative Justice and Deterring Crime (1997);
73. R. Young and B. Goold, "Restorative Police Cautioning in Aylesbury" [1999] Crim.L.R. 126.
74. R. Morgan and A. Sanders [1999] Crim.L.R. op. cit., Chap. 8.
75. Home Office Special Conferences Unit, The role of victims in the criminal justice process (1999) Conference Report, September. The government subsequently announced that it would implement a scheme on these lines, re-named the "Personal Statement Scheme".
76. Erez (Crim.L.R.) at 555.
77. Erez et al., [1997] above, 37.
78. W. MacPherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (1999) Cm 4262.
79. Note also the Attorney-General's Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas, issued in December 2000 (see the AG's website: www.Islo.gov.uk.),
80. discussed in A. Sanders and R. Young, "Discontinuances, The Rights of Victims and the Remedy of Freedom" NLJ, 19/1/01.
81. A. Sarat, above.