Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: Judicial Experiences and Perceptions A Survey of Three Jurisdictions

• Previous Page |
• Next Page
  
• PDF Version, 209 KB
• (PDF Help)

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgements
• Highlights
• Executive Summary
• Conclusion
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Findings
• 1. Volume of Hearings and Frequency of Statements
  • 1.1 Judges sentence a large number of offenders every month
  • 1.2 Judges report seeing victim impact statements in only a small percentage of cases
  • 1.3 Many judges report an increase in the number of VIS submitted since the statutory amendments of 1999
• 2. Informing the Victim
  • 2.1 Some Judges report having difficulty in determining whether the victim has been apprised of the right to submit an impact statement
  • 2.2 Judges may have to proceed with sentencing without knowing whether the victim has been apprised of the right to submit a victim impact statement
• 3. Issues Surrounding Oral Delivery of the VIS
  • 3.1 Victims seldom ask to read their victim statement aloud in court
  • 3.2 Most judges report no change in the number of victims wishing to make an oral presentation of their victim impact statements
  • 3.3 A small minority of judges report longer sentencing hearings as a result of victims making an oral presentation
  • 3.4 Only a small proportion of crime victims are cross-examined on their victim impact statements
• 4. Judicial Perceptions Regarding Utility and Relevance of VIS
  • 4.1 Judges generally find victim impact statements useful
  • 4.2 Judges believe VIS contain information relevant to the principles of sentencing
  • 4.3 Judges perceive VIS to constitute a unique source of information relevant to sentencing
  • 4.4 Perceptions of judges consistent with those of Crown counsel and judges in other jurisdictions
  • 4.5 Victim impact statements particularly useful for crimes of violence
  • 4.6 Judges report that victims’ views on sentencing appear in a significant percentage of statements
• 5. Judicial Recognition of Victim Impact
  • 5.1 Judges often refer to the victim impact statements or its contents
  • 5.2 Judges often address the victim directly
  • 5.3 Victim impact statements and communication in a sentencing hearing
• 6. Judicial Perceptions of the Victim’s Perspective
  • 6.1 Opinion divided regarding victims’ understanding of the purpose of VIS
  • 6.2 Many judges believe that VIS increase victim satisfaction
• 7. Judicial Perceptions of the Purpose of VIS
• 8. Discussion
  • 8.1 Some objections to victim input at sentencing
  • 8.2 Conclusion and future research priorities
• References
• Appendix A

• Previous Page |
• Next Page