The right of victims in adversarial legal systems to provide input into sentencing decisions is still controversial. The paper presents the various forms victim input takes and the arguments for and against its use in sentencing. It then surveys the relevant research that has addressed these arguments and examines the implementation of this right. The article concludes that victim input may have some beneficial results for victims and for the justice system, without any of the predicted adverse effects on them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonS. S.(1985). Redefining roles: the victims’ rights movement, Utah Law Review, 517–67.
2.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (1988). Sentencing, Report No. 44, AGPS; Canberra.
3.
BernatI.ParsonageW.HelfgottJ.(1994). Victim impact laws and the parole process in the USA: Balancing Victim and inmate rights and interests. International Review of Victimology, 3, 121–140.
4.
BoersK.SessarK. (1991). Do people really want punishment: On the relationship between acceptance of restitution, needs for punishment and fear of crime. In developments in Crime and Crime Control Research: German Studies on Victims, Offenders and the Public (SessarK.KernerH. -J., eds. ) Springer-Verlag; New York.
5.
CornsC.(1988). Offender and victims. In Current Australian Trends in Corrections (BilesDavid, ed. ) pp. 204–216. The Federation Press; Sydney.
6.
DavisR. C.(1985). First year evaluation of the victim impact demonstration project. Unpublished report. Victim Services Agency, New York; New York.
7.
DavisR. C.SmithB.(forthcoming). The effects of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly.
8.
DavisR. C.SmithB.(1991). Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction with justice: an unfilfilled promise?Unpublished paper, Victim Services Agency, New York; New York.
9.
Department of Justice Canada, Research Section, Research and Development Directorate. (1990). Victim Impact Statements in Canada, 7: A Summary of the Findings. Ottawa; Canada.
10.
DouglasR.LasterK.InglisN.(1994). Victims of efficiency: tracking victim information through the system in Victoria, Australia. International Review of Victimology, 3, 95–110.
11.
ErezE.(1989). The impact of victimology on criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3, 236–56.
12.
ErezE.(1990). Victim participation in sentencing: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 19–31.
13.
ErezE.BienkowskaE.(1993). Victim participation in proceedings and satisfaction with justice in the continental systems: the case of Poland. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 47–60.
14.
ErezE.MorganF.RoegerL.(forthcoming). Victim Impact Statements in South Australia. An Evaluation Study. Research Report. Office of Crime Statistics. Attorney General's Dept., South Australia.
15.
ErezE.TontodonatoP.(1990).The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology, 28, 451–74.
16.
ErezE.TontodonatoP.(1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–427.
17.
FattahE. A. (ed.) (1986). From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. Macmillan; London.
18.
GardnerJ.(1990). Victims and Criminal Justice, Research Report, Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney-General's Department; South Australia.
19.
GraboskyP. N.(1987). Victims. In The Criminal Injustice System. (ZdenkowskiG., eds.) Pluto Press; Sydney.
20.
HaganJ.(1982). Victims before the law: a study of victims’ involvement in the criminal justice process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73, 317–29.
21.
HallD. J.(1991). Victim voices in criminal court: the need for restraint. American Criminal Law Review, 28, 233–66.
22.
HeinzA. M.KerstetterW. G.(1979). Pre-trial settlement conference: evaluation of reform plea bargaining. Law & Society Review, 13, 349–66.
23.
HellersteinD. R.(1989). Victim impact statement: reform or reprisal?American Criminal Law Review, 27, 391–430.
24.
HendersonJ.GitchoffG. T.(1981). Using experts and victims in the sentencing process. Criminal Law Review, 17, 226–33.
25.
HendersonL. N.(1985). The wrongs of victims’ rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937–1021.
26.
HenleyM.DavisR. C.SmithB. E.(1994). The reactions of prosecutors and judges to victim impact statements. International Review of Victimology, 3, 83–93.
27.
HillenbrandS. W.SmithB.E. (1989). Victim Rights Legislation: An Assessment of its Impact on Criminal Justice Practitioners and Victims. Report of the American Bar Association to the National Institute of Justice.
28.
IndermaurD.(1990). Perceptions of Crime Seriousness and Sentencing: A Comparison of Court Practice and the Perceptions of a Sample of the Public and Judges, Report to the Criminology Research Council, Canberra; Australia.
29.
JoutsenM.(1994). Victim participation in proceedings and sentencing in Europe. International Review of Victimology, 3, 57–67.
30.
KellyD. P.(1984). Victims’ perceptions of criminal justice. Pepperdine Law Review, 11, 15–22.
31.
KellyD. P.(1987). Victims. Wayne Law Review, 34, 69–86.
32.
KellyD. P.(1990). Victim participation in the criminal justice systems. In Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs. (LurigioA. J.SkoganW. A.DavisR. C., eds. ), pp. 172–87. Newbury Park; California.
33.
KilpatrickD. G.OttoR. K.(1987). Constitutionally guaranteed participation in criminal justice proceedings for victims: potential effects of psychological functioning. Wayne Law Review, 34, 7–28.
34.
KosakiL. C.(1984). The ‘known’ criminal: non-stranger crime in the criminal court. Unpublished dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan; University Microfilm.
35.
KuryH.KaiserM.TeskeR.(1994). The position of the victim in criminal procedure: results of a German study. International Review of Victimology, 3, 69–81.
36.
LurigioA. J.ResickP. A.(1990). Healing the psychological wounds of criminal victimization: predicting postcrime distress and recovery. In Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies, and Programs. (LurigioA. J. et al. ,eds) pp. 50–68. Sage, Newbury Park; California.
37.
McLeodM.(1986). Victim participation at sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin, 22, 501–17.
38.
McLeodM.(1987). An examination of the victim's role at sentencing: results of a survey of probation administrators. Judicature, 71, 162–68.
39.
McLeodM.(1988). The Authorization and Implementation of Victim Impact Statements. National Institute of Justice; Washington, D. C.
40.
ParsonageW.BernatF.HelfgottJ.(forthcoming). Impact of victim testimony on parole decision-making in Pennsylvania. In The Legacy of the Conservative ideology: Implication for American Criminal Justice (LetmanS., ed.). STL Publishers; Kansas City.
41.
President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. (1982). Final Report. U. S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D. C.
42.
RubelH. C.(1986). Victim participation in sentencing proceedings. Criminal Law Quarterly, 28, 226–50.
43.
SebbaL.(1994). Sentencing and the victim: The aftermath of Payne. International Review of Victimology, 3, 141–165.
44.
ShaplandJ.WillmoreJ.DuffP.(1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower; Aldershot.
45.
SumnerC. J.(1987). Victim participation in the criminal justice system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 195–217.
46.
SumnerC. J.SuttonA. C.(1990). Implementing victims’ rights — an Australian perspective. Journal of the Australian Society of Victimology, 1, 4–10.
47.
TalbertP. A.(1988). The relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. U. C. L. A. Law Review, 36, 199–232.
48.
TontodonatoP.ErezE.(1993). Crime, punishment and victim distress. International Review of Victimology, 3, 000–000.
49.
TylerT. R.(1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103–135.
50.
U. S. Department of Justice. (1988). Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, U. S. government Printing Office; Washintgon, D. C.
51.
Victorian Sentencing Committee. (1988). Sentencing: Report of the Committee. Attorney General's Department; Melbourne.
52.
VillmoareE.NetoV. V.(1987). Victim Appearances at Sentencing Hearings under the California Victims’ Bill of Rights. N I J Executive Summary, p. 37. U. S. Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.
53.
WalkerN.HoughM.(1987). Public Attitudes to Sentencing. Gower’ Aldershot.
54.
WalshA.(1986). Placebo justice: victim recommendations and offender sentences in sexual assault cases. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 1126–71.
55.
ZimmermanS.AlystyneD.DunnC.(1988). The national punishment survey and public policy consequences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 120–49.
