A victim impact statement that a crime victim gives at criminal sentencing explaining what
the impact was of the crime.
It can be used by the judge to determine an appropriate sentence.
It also can be used in other ways, such as sending a message to the defendant about the
pain and suffering that a crime has caused.
Victim impact statements have been in the news lately in some prominent cases.
For example, many will recall the U.S. gymnastics victims who were victimized by Dr. Larry Nassar.
Jude Aquilina, in that case, allowed more than 100 women to come into her courtroom
and give a victim impact statement as a way of obtaining, perhaps, some kind of closure,
an opportunity to address the defendant.
An opportunity to address the world about what that crime had to them.
In the last several decades, there's been an increasing interest in making sure that
victims have right protected during the criminal justice process at appropriate points.
For example, in 1982, President Reagan's task force on victims of crime recommended that
crime victims should have the opportunity to give a victim impact statement whenever
a judge was sentencing a defendant.
Today, in all 50 states and in the federal criminal justice system, crime victims have
the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement.
It's protected by statute or court rule or other devices and it's a means of making sure
that the victim's voice is heard in the process.
Victims don't get a veto over what the sentence should be.
But victims do get a voice in what that sentence should be by directly addressing the judge
and explaining what the circumstances of the crime were and what kinds of things the judge
should be considering when imposing a sentence on a defendant.
It's important to understand that a victim impact statement doesn't necessarily mean
that a judge is doing to impose a harsher penalty.
In fact, sometimes victims want shorter penalties than the prosecutor may be seeking.
An example of this is in the area of restitution.
A prosecutor might wish to, uh, sentence a defendant to several years in prison.
But a victim might prefer to have the defendant sentenced to work release so that the defendant
could continue to maintain a job and pay restitution.
The victim impact statement, in short, allows the judge to fully understand the dimensions
of the crime and the repercussions, not only of the crime but also of the potential sentence.
And then judge can then use all of that information in crafting an appropriate sentence.
When we consider victim impact statements, it's using to consider what the other actors
during sentencing are allowed to do.
Prosecutors are allowed to give a statement to the judge as to the appropriate sentence.
And likewise, a defense attorney and the defendant get to allocute or make a statement to the
judge arguing for mercy or whatever other conditions that they would like to see, uh,
placed on the sentence.
Defendants have sometimes argued, particularly in capital cases, that it's unfair to allow
victim impact evidence into a sentencing proceeding.
Critics of victim impact statements will say that they're simply too emotional to be part
of our criminal justice system.
But it's useful to remember that defendants can make emotional statements to a judge
as a plea for mercy, for example, during sentencing.
And no one thinks that that reduces the objectivity of the criminal justice system.
Those issues reached the United States Supreme Court in 1991 in a case called Payne versus
Tennessee.
And the Supreme Court rejected the defense challenge, concluding it was not cruel and
unusual punishment to allow victims' voices to be heard.
Instead, the Court concluded that a victim’s voice was simply part of the process, just
the way the defendant's voice is part of the process when sentencing issues are being decided.
Sometimes it's argued that a victim impact statement will lead to prejudice against the
defendant.
But we need to carefully distinguish between prejudice to a defendant and unfair prejudice.
It certainly will be prejudicial if the judge knows that the defendant has caused terrible
damage to a victim.
But it's not unfair for the judge to consider that in imposing sentence.
One of the criticisms made about victim impact statements is that it encourages a comparison
between victims.
And victims who are most politically connected or most well-spoken will somehow obtain a
longer sentence for the crimes committed against them than would other people.
However, that o-objection has to be considered against the backdrop that defendants are allowed
to give statements to the judge.
And remember, some defendants may be well-spoken, some may be well-connected.
But no one has ever thought that that would be a reason for not allowing defendants to
address the judge.
And that's why all 50 states have concluded that victims deserve the right to give a victim
impact statement.
Not so the judge will compare different crimes or different victims, but so that the judge
will have all information in any particular case in front of him or her when deciding
what sentence to impose.