Addressing the Court, the Offender, and the Community: A Communication Analysis of Victim Impact Statements in a Non-Capital Sentencing Hearing1
| Author | Susan J. Szmania,Monica L. Gracyalny |
| DOI | 10.1177/026975800601300301 |
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
International
Review
of
Victimology,
2006, Vol.l3,
pp
231-249
0269-7580/06 $10
© A B
Academic
Publishers
-Printed
in
Great
Britain
ADDRESSING
THE
COURT,
THE
OFFENDER,
AND
THE
COMMUNITY:
A
COMMUNICATION
ANALYSIS
OF
VICTIM
IMPACT
STATEMENTS
IN
A
NON-CAPITAL
SENTENCING
HEARING
1
SUSAN
J.
SZMANIA
and
MONICAL.
GRACYALNY*
University
of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
USA
ABSTRACT
This
article
focuses
on
forty
oral
Victim
Impact
Statements
(VIS)
presented
during
the
public
sentencing
hearing
of
an
offender
convicted
of
murdering
forty-eight
women
over
the
course
of
twenty
years.
We
argue
that
the
VIS
in
this
case
illustrate
the
increasingly
complex
and
public
nature
of
victim
testimony
in
the
formal
U.S.
criminal
justice
system.
Through
the
use
of
grounded
theory
analysis,
we
highlight
critical
issues
regarding
the
communicative
function
and
emotional
intensity of
victim
impact
testimony
as
victims
address
the
court,
the
offender,
and
the
community
through
their
statements.
This
case
study
extends
Roberts
and
Erez's
(2004)
communication
model
of
VIS
and
offers
several
practice
and
policy
recommendations
for
the
use
of
VIS
in
non-capital
criminal
cases.
Keywords:
victim
impact
statement,
law,
communication,
grounded
theory,
non-capital
sentenc-
ing
Beginning in the 1980s and for a period
of
nearly twenty years, over forty-eight
dead bodies
of
young women were found along the Green River near Seattle,
Washington. Most
of
the victims were known prostitutes. After a lengthy inves-
tigation, Gary Leon Ridgway, a slight Anglo man in his mid fifties, was charged
with the crimes. The prosecutor's summary
of
the evidence indicated that
Ridgway picked many
of
the women up
in
his own car, engaged the women
in
sexual activities, strangled them, and dumped their bodies near the Green River.2
In 2003, Ridgway pled guilty to the murders. The plea agreement required
Ridgway to inform investigators about the circumstances
of
the victims' deaths.
Ridgway was interrogated for several weeks and provided many details
of
the
grisly murders. As part
of
the plea agreement, prosecutors declined to pursue the
death penalty. Ridgway was sentenced to forty-eight consecutive life sentences.
*Dr.
Susan
J.
Szmania,
Department
of
Communication,
Johnston
Hall,
Room
210,
PO
Box
413,
University
of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee,
WI
53201,
United
States
of
America
(sszma-
nia@uwm.edn)
232
Before
the
judge
rendered
the
sentence,
the
families
of Ridgway's
victims
were
given
an
opportunity
to
speak
directly
to
the
court
through
Victim
Impact
Statements
(VIS).
This
article
focuses
on
the
forty
oral
VIS
presented
during
the
Ridgway
trial.
We
argue
that
the
VIS
in
this
case
illustrate
the
complex
and
public
nature of
victim
testimony
in
the
formal
U.S.
criminal
justice system.
Through
this
case
study
and
grounded
theory
analysis,
we
highlight critical
issues
regarding
the
communicative
function
of
VIS
as
victims
address
the
courtroom,
the
offender,
and
the
community
through
their
testimony.
This
analysis
extends
Roberts
and
Erez's
(2004)
communication
model
of
VIS
and
offers
several practice
and
policy
recommendations
for
the
use
of
VIS
in
non-capital criminal
cases.
THE
USE
OF
VICTIM
IMPACT
STATEMENTS
VIS in Criminal Court
Crime
victims
are
increasingly called
upon
to
participate
in
criminal trials
and
other
facets
of
the
criminal
justice
system.
The
Victim's
Rights
Movement,
which
gained
momentum
in
the
1970s,
brought
about
a
new
awareness of
victim
needs
and
concerns
following
a
crime.
Since
then,
victim
participation
in
the
legal
system
has
grown
tremendously
(Erez
and
Rogers,
1999).
In
the
U.S.,
the
1982
President's
Task
Force
on
Victims
increased
victims'
rights
in
important
ways
across
the
nation
(Davis
and
Smith,
1994).
Victims
are
now
routinely
offered
immediate
care
by
trained
victim
assistance
units,
informed about their
offenders' progress
through
the
criminal
justice
system,
provided
some
restitu-
tion,
3
allowed
access
to
ongoing
counselling
and
other support services,
and
given
the
opportunity
to
participate
directly
in
the
sentencing
of their offenders
through
VIS
in
every
state
in
the
U.S.
(Andrias,
1997;
Herman
and
Wasserman,
2001).
Victims
can
also
take
advantage
of post-sentencing programs
such
as
victim
impact
panels,
victim
offender
mediation
programs,
or
participate
in
offender parole
hearings
(Herman
and
Wasserman,
2001).
Today,
VIS
represent
the
most
widely
used
method
of integrating victims'
voices
into
the
criminal justice
system
(Wood,
2005).
Three
Supreme
Court
decisions
legitimated
the
use
of
impact
testimony
in
capital punishment cases at
the
federa11eve1
(see
Payne
v.
Tennessee
501
U.S.
808
(1991);
Gathers
v.
South
Carolina,
490
U.S.
805
(1989);
and
Booth
v.
Maryland,
482
U.S.
496
(1987)).
In
the
latest
ruling
on
VIS,
Payne
v.
Tennessee,
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court reversed
its
opinion
given
in
the
previous
two
cases.
In
Payne,
the
Court
found
that victim
testimony
is
admissible
in
the
penalty
phase
of capital
trials
in
order
to
provide
information about
the
victim
to
the
jury
in
addition
to
the
mitigating evidence
presented
about
the
defendant
(Luginbuhl
and
Burkhead,
1995).
At
the
state
and
local
level,
legislation
has
been
included
in
many
states
to
promote
the
use
of a
To continue reading
Request your trial