Delivering a Victim Impact Statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive?
| Author | Kim ME Lens,Stefan Bogaerts,Antony Pemberton,Esmah Lahlah,Karen Brans,Johan Braeken |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814538778 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2014
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2015, Vol. 12(1) 17 –34
Delivering a Victim Impact
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Statement: Emotionally
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370814538778
euc.sagepub.com
effective or counter-
productive?
Kim ME Lens
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Antony Pemberton
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Karen Brans
KU Leuven, Belgium
Johan Braeken
Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands
Stefan Bogaerts
Tilburg University and Research and Innovation Forensic Psychiatric Center De Kijvelanden/Dok, The
Netherlands
Esmah Lahlah
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Abstract
Although the delivery of a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) in court is assumed to contribute to the
healing and recovery process of victims of violent crimes, its effectiveness to facilitate emotional
recovery is widely debated. The current longitudinal study is the first to empirically examine the
psychological effects of delivering a VIS in terms of the two most important emotional reactions
Corresponding author:
Kim ME Lens, INTERVICT, Tilburg University Law School, Warandelaan 2, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The
Netherlands.
Email: k.m.e.lens@tilburguniversity.edu
18
European Journal of Criminology 12(1)
after crime: anger and anxiety. It extends previous findings by showing that the debate concerning
the effectiveness of delivering a VIS is not a ‘black and white’ matter. In this article, we argue that
the question should not be whether delivering a VIS ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t work’ for the victim, but
for whom, and under which conditions. We show that delivering a VIS does not give rise to direct
‘therapeutic’ effects. However, we found that feelings of anger and anxiety decrease for victims
who experience more control over their recovery process and higher levels of procedural justice.
Keywords
Emotional recovery, therapeutic justice, procedural justice, Victim Impact Statement, victim
participation
Crime victims play an increasingly important role in criminal justice procedures (for
example, Groenhuijsen and Pemberton, 2009; Roberts, 2009). One of the instruments
that allow victims to participate in criminal justice procedures is the Victim Impact
Statement (VIS). VISs are written or oral statements made by the victim in which they
express the (financial, social, psychological and physical) harm they have experienced as
a part of the court proceedings (Erez, 1990, 2004). In the Netherlands, the right to deliver
an oral VIS was afforded to victims of severe violent crimes in 2005. The implementa-
tion of this right was accompanied by the possibility of submitting a written VIS, which
is added to the file of the criminal case. In the Netherlands, the content of the VIS is
restricted in the sense that victims can speak only about the consequences of the crime,
and are not allowed to speak about the facts of the crime or a desired punishment. The
Dutch objectives of the VIS are captured in multiple goals.1 The key victimological goal
concerns the contribution of the VIS to the victim’s emotional recovery. This issue is also
the main consideration in research and theory concerning VIS in other jurisdictions and
comprises the main research question of the present article. In particular, it is presumed
that the delivery of a VIS may facilitate recovery from the emotional harm that has been
caused by the crime (see also Edwards, 2001; Roberts and Erez, 2004). Hence, the deliv-
ery of a VIS is supposed to have therapeutic benefits and to contribute to the emotional
healing and recovery process of victims (Explanatory Memorandum of the Oral Victim
Impact Statement Act, 2005, 2012).
Therapeutic benefits?
The effectiveness of VISs in facilitating recovery is widely debated (Pemberton and
Reynaers, 2011; Roberts, 2009). Whereas some argue that VISs are effective in helping
victims to recover from the crime, others suggest that delivering a VIS may even be
counter-productive, in the sense that it may lead to secondary victimization (also known
as post-crime victimization). This duality is exemplified in contradictory statements such
as ‘VIS, don’t work, can’t work’ (Sanders et al., 2001) and ‘VIS can work, do work (for
those who bother to make them)’ (Chalmers et al., 2007): Whereas Sanders et al. (2001:
447) argue that VISs ‘fail in practice’, Chalmers et al. (2007: 366) claim that their thera-
peutic benefits ‘do have some value’.
Lens et al.
19
According to Pemberton and Reynaers (2011), the debate about the effectiveness of
the VIS is seriously hampered by a lack of empirical evidence concerning its therapeutic
effects. Until now, few studies have empirically examined whether and, if so, how the
delivery of an oral VIS is related to emotional recovery (Erez, 2004; Roberts and Erez,
2004). Moreover, the empirical studies that did so are characterized by a number of
important limitations (see also Roberts, 2009; Walklate, 2002). First, previous studies
typically used victim ‘satisfaction’ (or a similar construct) as an outcome measure (see
also Edwards, 2001; Erez, 2004; Roberts and Erez, 2004). This is troublesome, because
neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction can be directly translated into therapeutic and anti-
therapeutic effects (McNally et al., 2003; Zech and Rimé, 2005). Moreover, advocates
and critics of VIS regimes tend to hold very different views of the effects of VIS on the
satisfaction levels of participating victims (Roberts, 2009): whereas some argue that sub-
mitting a VIS will increase victim satisfaction (for example, Alexander and Lord, 1994),
others claim that victims are unlikely to ‘benefit’ from submitting a VIS (for example,
Davis and Smith, 1994). Second, both proponents and opponents of the VIS have been
inclined to extrapolate from (dis)satisfaction to other consequences. This is especially
true of the extrapolation from dissatisfaction to secondary victimization. For example, it
may well be true that failing to meet victims’ expectations may lead to dissatisfaction
(Ashworth, 2000; Edwards, 2001; Sanders et al., 2001), but it is not synonymous with
secondary victimization in the sense that it leads to negative effects on the victim’s
well-being.
In sum, although a central goal of the VIS is to contribute to the victim’s emotional
recovery (for example, Edwards, 2001; Roberts and Erez, 2004), empirical evidence
about its therapeutic benefits in terms of emotional recovery is lacking (see also Edwards,
2001; Herman, 2003; Parsons and Bergin, 2010; Roberts, 2009; Roberts and Manikis,
2013). In a review paper, Herman (2003: 162) summarizes the lack of empirical knowl-
edge about the effects of victim participation in the criminal justice procedure by arguing
that ‘[a] systematic study of the mental health impact of crime victims’ participation, or
nonparticipation, in the criminal justice system has yet to be conducted’. The goal of the
present study is to fill this empirical gap with regard to examining the effects of deliver-
ing a VIS. In particular, we conducted a longitudinal study among victims of severe
violent crimes to examine the impact of delivering a VIS on their emotional recovery.
Theoretical notions
Several theoretical notions are essential in understanding the complexity surrounding the
determination (or measurement) of ‘emotional recovery’ after delivering a VIS. First, we
elaborate upon ‘general notions’ of emotional recovery after crime. Second, we discuss
specific theoretical assumptions regarding the effects of delivering a VIS.
Trajectories of recovery after crime
Numerous studies have shown the devastating effects that crime can have on victims for
months and even years following the traumatic event. Nonetheless, there also is great
variability in how individuals are affected by criminal acts (for example, Frazier et al.,
20
European Journal of Criminology 12(1)
2004). Recent theoretical models have argued for distinct trajectories of mental health
outcomes following traumatic events (Bonanno, 2004; Layne et al., 2007; Steenkamp et
al., 2012). Bonanno (2004) described four main trajectories after experiencing a trau-
matic event: a resilience trajectory, which is characterized as an initial period of mild
symptoms and disruption in functional abilities, followed by a return to adaptive func-
tioning; a recovery trajectory, which is characterized by an initial period of moderate to
severe symptoms that dissipate in the weeks and months following trauma; a chronic
impairment trajectory, which involves persistently high levels of distress and dysfunc-
tion; and a delayed distress trajectory, in which individuals experience an increase in
symptoms over time after little or no initial reaction (Bonanno, 2004). Layne et al. (2007)
argued for an additional resistance trajectory, which involves enduring homeostasis (that
is, the development of no or few symptoms).
Recent research (Lens et al., 2010; Lens et al., 2013) has connected the distinct trajec-
tories of recovery for victims to the choice to deliver or to decline the opportunity to
deliver a VIS, by showing that victims who choose to deliver a VIS display a signifi-
cantly higher degree of psychological complaints after the crime, compared with those
who decline their opportunity to do so (Lens et al., 2013). Whereas victims who opt for
the delivery of a VIS show signs of...
To continue reading
Request your trial