The Victim Impact Statement (VIS) has transformed victims’ interactions with the criminal justice system. Victims have been given a voice through which they can tell their story and share their victimisation experience. These autobiographical narratives could furthermore instigate reciprocal communication between victims and legal professionals. The communicative value of victim participation has the potential to restore victims’ agency and communion. Agency and communion are the Big Two in social psychology and reflect feelings such as individuality and achievement, and feelings such as belongingness and inclusion, respectively. This multi-method research explores the content, intention and impact of the communication between victims and legal professionals in relation to VIS in the Netherlands, and links this to the framework of agency and communion. A coding model was used to structure the data. Results show that professionals make concerted efforts that victims feel heard, which has positive effects on feelings of agency and communion. These findings emphasise the value of victim participation and the need for an acknowledgement of the agency- and communion-related goals of it.
AbeleAEWojciszkeB (2007) Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology93(5): 751–763.
2.
AloiPA (2015) Victim impact statements in Western Australia. University of Western Australia Law Review38(2): 24–45.
3.
AndringaWBruijnSTen DoeschotF, et al. (2023) Slachtoffermonitor 2022 (3e meting). Report for the Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC). Report no. 2023/076, 2 May. Enschede: I&O Research.
4.
AshworthA (1993) Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review1993: 498–509.
5.
BakanD (1966) The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
6.
BandesSA (1996) Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review63(2): 361–412.
7.
BandesSA (2022) What are victim impact statements for?Brooklyn Law Review87(4): 1253–1282.
8.
BoothT (2012) ‘Cooling out’ victims of crime: Managing victim participation in the sentencing process in a superior sentencing court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology45(2): 214–230.
9.
BoothT (2014) The restorative capacities of victim impact statements: Analysis of the victim-judge communication dyad in the sentencing of homicide offenders. Restorative Justice2(3): 302–326.
10.
BoothT (2016) Accommodating Justice: Victim Impact Statements in the Sentencing Process. Alexandria, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press.
11.
BoothTBosmaALensK (2018) Accommodating the expressive function of victim impact statements: The scope for victims’ voices in Dutch Courtrooms. British Journal of Criminology58(6): 1480–1498.
BosmaAK (2024) Being in two minds: Accommodating emotional victim narratives in Dutch courtrooms. Frontiers in Sociology9: 1411155.
14.
BraunK (2013) Giving victims a voice: On the problems of introducing victim impact statements in German criminal procedure. German Law Journal14(9): 1889–1908.
15.
CaseyJ (2022) Terra incognita: Victim participation rights, sexual offending and Brexit. New Journal of European Criminal Law13(4): 420–438.
16.
CassellP (2009) In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law6: 611–648.
17.
DalyK (2014) Reconceptualizing sexual vicitmization and justice. In: VanfraechemIPembertonANdahindaFM (eds) Justice for Victims. London: Routledge, pp. 378–395.
18.
ErezE (1991) Victim Impact Statements. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
19.
ErezE (2004) Victim voice, impact statements and sentencing: Integrating restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence principles in adversarial proceedings. Criminal Law Bulletin40(5): 483–500.
20.
ErezELasterK (1999) Neutralizing victim reform: Legal professionals’ perspectives on victims and impact statements. Crime and Delinquency45(4): 553–530.
21.
ErezEGlobokarJLIbarraPR (2014) Outsiders inside: Victim management in an era of participatory reforms. International Review of Victimology20(1): 169–188.
22.
ErezEIbarraPRDownsD (2011) Victim welfare and participation reforms in the United States: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. In: ErezEKilchlingMWemmersJM (eds) Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Victim Participation in Justice: International Perspectives. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 15–40.
23.
HermanJL (1992) Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and repeated trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress5(3): 377–391.
24.
HermanJL (2005) Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence against Women11(5): 571–602.
25.
HorowitzLMWilsonKRTuranB, et al. (2006) How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review10(1): 67–86.
26.
HoyleC (2010) The case for restorative justice. In: CunneenCHoyleC (eds) Debating Restorative Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 59–101.
27.
HoyleC (2011) Empowerment through emotion: The use and abuse of victim impact evidence. In: ErezEKilchlingMWemmersJM (eds) Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Victim Participation in Justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 249–283.
28.
KoolRSBVerhageG (2014) The (political) pursuit of victim voice: (Comparative) observations on the Dutch draft on the adviesrecht. Utrecht Law Review10(4): 86–99.
29.
KragtingMAugusteijnFElbersN, et al. (2022) Evaluatie wet uitbreiding spreekrecht: Slachtoffers en nabestaanden in het strafproces (nr. 3210). The Hague: WODC. Available at: https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/3243 (accessed 4 December 2023).
30.
KragtingMElbersNAugusteijnF, et al. (2024) Understanding the relation between agency and communion and victim impact statements. International Criminology4: 66–78.
31.
KunstMSchotJPembertonA (2022) Victim participatory rights in Dutch criminal proceedings. In: CoxPWalklateS (eds) Victims’ Access to Justice. London: Routledge, pp. 174–190.
32.
LensKPembertonAGroenhuijsenM (2010) Het spreekrecht in Nederland: Een bijdrage aan het emotioneel herstel van slachtoffers? (nr. 1676). The Hague: WODC. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12832/1726 (accessed 4 December 2023).
33.
LensKMEPembertonABogaertsS (2013) Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a victim impact statement. European Journal of Criminology10(4): 479–495.
34.
MackKRoach AnleuS (2010) Performing impartiality: Judicial demeanor and legitimacy. Law and Social Inquiry35(1): 137–173.
35.
McAdamsDP (1996) Themes of agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality64(2): 339–377.
McCabeADinhKT (2016) Agency and communion, ineffectiveness and alienation: Themes in the life stories of Latino and Southeast Asian adolescents. Imagination, Cognition and Personality36(2): 150–171.
38.
PembertonA (2016) Empathy for victims in criminal justice: Revisiting Susan Bandes in victimology. In: ConwayHStannardJ (eds) Emotional Dynamics of Law and Legal Discourse. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 105–128.
39.
PembertonAAartenPGMMulderE (2017) Beyond retribution, restoration and procedural justice: The big two of communion and agency in victims’ perspectives on justice. Psychology, Crime and Law23(7): 682–698.
40.
Roach AnleuSMackK (2005) Magistrates’ everyday work and emotional labour. Journal of Law and Society32(4): 590–614.
41.
RobertsJManikisM (2011) Victim Personal Statements: A Review of Empirical Research. London: Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales.
42.
RobertsJVErezE (2004) Communication in sentencing: Exploring the expressive function of victim impact statements. International Review of Victimology10: 223–244.
43.
RockP (2010) ‘Hearing victims of crime’: The delivery of impact statements as ritual behaviour in four London trials for murder and manslaughter. In: BottomsARobertsJ (eds) Hearing the Victim: Adversarial Justice, Crime Victims and the State. Uffculme: Willan Publishing, pp. 200–231.
44.
SimanTov-NachlieliIShnabelNNadlerA (2013) Individuals’ and groups’ motivation to restore their impaired identity dimensions following conflicts: Evidence and implications. Social Psychology44(2): 129–137.
45.
Van de VenP (2022) The role of social support in the aftermath of victimization: Interpersonal aspects of coming to terms with a victimization experience. Doctoral Thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg. Available at: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/60438703/van_de_Ven_The_role_18_02_2022.pdf (accessed 10 May 2025).
46.
WemmersJM (2005) Victim policy transfer: Learning from each other. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research11(1): 121–133.
47.
WilinskyCLMcCabeA (2021) Agency and communion in sexual abuse survivors’ narratives. Narrative Inquiry31(1): 236–262.
