In 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court — reversing its earlier decisions on this point — held that it was permissible to present before a jury at a capital sentencing hearing evidence regarding the character of the victim and the suffering inflicted upon the vistim's family. The implications of this decision for sentencing philosophy are considered, particularly in the context of the ‘justice’ model, and in relation to the two components of determining offence seriousness — harm and culpability. Alternative models of justice are considred, and a suggestion is profferred for enabling the victim to have a ‘day in court’ without unfairly prejudicing the position of the defendant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelC.MarshF. (1984). Punishment and Restitution: A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal. Greenwood Press; Westport, Connecticut.
2.
American Friends Service Committee (1971). Struggle for Justice. Hill and Wang; New York.
3.
American Law Institute (1962). Model Penal Code: Proposed Official Draft. Philadelphia.
4.
AshworthA. (1983). Sentencing and Penal Policy. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; London.
5.
AshworthA. (1992). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Weidenfeld and Nicolson; London.
6.
AshworthA. (1993). Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review, 498–509.
7.
BassiouniM.C. (ed.) (1985). International Protection of Victims. Érès; Toulouse.
8.
BoudreauxP. (1989). Booth v. Maryland and the individual vengeance rationale for criminal punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80,177–196.
9.
BraithwaiteJ.PettitP. (1990). Not Just Deserts. Clarendon Press; Oxford.
10.
CavadinoM.DignanJ. (1993). Reparation, Retribution and Rights. Paper presented to the British Criminology Conference; Cardiff University, U.K.
11.
ChristieN. (1986). The ideal victim. In From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. (FattahE., ed.) pp. 17–30. Macmillan.
12.
CohnH.H. (1977). Some aspects of justice in ancient jewish law. Revista Juridica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 434–442.
13.
DavisM. (1983). How to make the punishment fit the crime. Ethics, 93, 726–752.
14.
ErezE.TontodonatoP. (1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–417.
15.
FeinbergJ. (1986). Harm to Others. Oxford University Press; New York.
16.
FennellS.A.HallW.N. (1980). Due process at sentencing: An empirical and legal analysis of the disclosure of pre-sentence reports in Federal courts. Harvard Law Review, 93, 1615–1697.
17.
GalawayB.HudsonJ. (eds.) (1990). Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation. Criminal Justice Press; Monsey, New York.
18.
GittlerJ. (1984). Expanding the role of the victim in a criminal action. Pepperdine Law Review, 11, 117–182.
19.
GobertJ.J. (1993). The fortuity of consequence. Criminal Law Forum, 4, 1–46.
20.
GoldsteinA. (1982). Defining the role of the victim in criminal prosecution. Mississippi Law Journal, 52, 515–566.
21.
HallD.J. (1991). Victims' voices in criminal court: the need for restraint. American Criminal Law Review, 28, 233–266.
22.
HamiltonV.L.RytinaS. (1980). Social consensus on norms of justice: should the punishment fit the crime?American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1117–1144.
23.
HendersonL. (1985). The wrongs of victim's rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937–102l.
24.
HellersteinD.R. (1989). The victim impact statement: reform or reprisal?American Criminal Law Review, 27, 391–430.
25.
HerringtonL.H.(Chairperson). (1982). President's Task Force on Victims of Crime: Final Report. Washington, D.C.
26.
HillenbrandS.W.SmithB.E. (1989). Victims' Rights Legislation: An Assessment of its Impact on Criminal Justice Practitioners and Victims. American Bar Association.
27.
HowardC.T. (1988). Booth v. Maryland — death knell for the victim impact statement?Maryland Law Review, 47, 701–738.
28.
JoutsenM. (1987). The Role of the Victim of Crime in European Criminal Justice Systems. HEUNI, Helsinki.
29.
KaiserG.KuryH.AlbrechtH-J. (1991). Victims and Criminal Justice. Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign and International Law; Freiburg.
30.
KennardK.L. (1989). The victim's veto: a way to increase victim impact on criminal case dispositions. California Law Review, 77, 417–453.
31.
LambornL.L. (1987). Victim participation in the criminal process: the proposals for a constitutional amendment. Wayne Law Review, 34, 125–220.
MiersD. (1990). Compensation for Criminal Injuries. Butterworths; London.
34.
MiersD. (1992). The responsibilities and the rights of victims of crime. Modern Law Review, 55, 482–505.
35.
MurphyR.S. (1988).The significance of harm: Booth v. Maryland and the philosophy of punishment in the. Supreme Court. University of Chicago Law Review, 55, 1303–1333.
36.
NOVA (National Organization of Victim Assistance). (1989). Victim Rights and Services: A Legislative Directory 1988, NOVA; Washington, D.C.
37.
O'NeillT.P. (1984). The good, the bad and the Burger Court: victims' rights and a new model of criminal review. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 363–387.
38.
SchaferS. (1968). The Victim and His Criminal. Random House; New York.
39.
SebbaL. (1980). Is mens rea a component of perceived offense seriousness?Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71, 124–135.
40.
SebbaL. (1982). The victim's role in the penal process: a theoretical orientation. American Journal of Comparative Law, 30, 217–240.
41.
SebbaL. (1985). Wrongdoers, Victims and Justice. Report to the National Institute of Justice (unpublished).
42.
SebbaL. (1989). Victims and the parameters of a justice system. In Victimology: International Action and Study of Victims (SeparovicZ.P., ed.) pp. 13–24.
43.
SellinT.WolfgangM.E. (1964/1978). The Measurement of Delinquency. Patterson Smith; Montclair, N.J.
44.
ShaplandJ.WillmoreJ.DuffP. (1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower; Aldershot.
45.
ShacharU. (1987). The fortuitous gap in law and morality, Criminal Justice Ethics, 6, 12–36.
46.
SingerR.G. (19779). Just Deserts: Sentencing Based on Equality and Desert. Ballinger; Cambridge.
47.
TalbertP.A. (1988). The relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. UCLA Law Review, 36, 199–232.
ThorvaldsonS.A. (1990). Restitution and victim participation at sentencing: a comparison of two models. In Criminal Justice, Restitution and Reconciliation (GalawayB.HudsonJ., eds.) q.v., pp. 23–36.
50.
U.S. Sentencing Commission (1987). Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.
51.
von HirschA. (1976). Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. Hill and Wang; New York.
52.
von HirschA. (1985). Past or Future Crimes. Rutgers University Press; New Brunswick.
53.
von HirschA.JareborgN. (1991). Gauging criminal harm: a living-standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 1–38.
54.
VillmoareE.NetoV.V. (1987). Victim Appearances at Sentencing Hearings Under the California Victims' Bill of Rights. U.S. Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.
55.
WeigendT. (1983). Sentencing in West Germany. In Reform and Punishment: Essays on Criminal Sentencing (TonryM.ZimringF.E., eds.) p. 21. University of Chicago; Chicago.
WolfgangM.E. (1982). Basic concepts in victimology theory: individualization of the victim. In The Victim in International Perspective (SchneiderH-J, ed.) pp. 47–58. de Gruyter; Berlin.
58.
WolfgangM.E.SingerS.J. (1978). Victim categories in crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 379–394.
59.
WrightM. (1991). Justice for Victims and Offenders. Open University; Milton Keynes, U.K.
