Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a Victim Impact Statement
| Author | Antony Pemberton,Stefan Bogaerts,Kim M.E. Lens |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812469859 |
| Published date | 01 July 2013 |
| Date | 01 July 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2013
Article
European Journal of Criminology
10(4) 479 –495
Heterogeneity in victim
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
participation: A new
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812469859
euc.sagepub.com
perspective on delivering a
Victim Impact Statement
Kim M.E. Lens, Antony Pemberton and
Stefan Bogaerts
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Abstract
A central question in the debate about victim participation in criminal justice procedures is which
instrument available to victims ‘works’. The purpose of the present study was to examine which
factors contribute to the likelihood of victims delivering a Victim Impact Statement (VIS). We
extend previous research in two important regards. First, we examined victims’ perspectives on
the purposes and function of the VIS. Consistent with previous research (for example, Roberts
and Erez, 2004), we reveal a distinction between impact-related and expression-related use of
VISs. However, this study adds a third component to the existing literature: the anticipation of
negative consequences. Second, we examined which factors influence the likelihood of delivering
a VIS and found three variables to be positively associated: posttraumatic stress symptoms, the
type of crime, and the time of victimization. Against expectations, victims’ perspectives did not
make a unique contribution to the model. Based on these findings, we argue that what is called
for is a more heterogeneous approach to the study of procedural instruments available to victims.
Keywords
Crime severity, Victim Impact Statement, victim participation, victim perspectives
Since the 1970s, the position of victims in the criminal justice system has been strength-
ened in many countries (Groenhuijsen and Letschert, 2008; Hall, 2010). Whereas 30
years ago it was correct to assert that the victim was the forgotten party of the criminal
justice process, today such an assertion would be at odds with reality. The upsurge of the
victim of crime has spurned a considerable amount of literature on both the advantages
and disadvantages of granting victims participatory rights (for example, Ashworth, 2000;
Corresponding author:
Kim M.E. Lens, INTERVICT, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Email: k.m.e.lens@tilburguniversity.edu
480
European Journal of Criminology 10(4)
Erez, 1999; Groenhuijsen, 1999; Sarat, 1997) and the effectiveness of different victim-
oriented measures (for example, Chalmers et al., 2007; Roberts and Erez, 2010; Roberts,
2009; Sanders et al., 2001; Sherman and Strang, 2007).
Research evaluating the contribution of victims’ rights to victims’ well-being tends to
view victims of crime as a homogeneous group (Green, 2007; Pemberton et al., 2007).
Where distinctions are made within the victim population, they primarily concern crime
characteristics (for example, distinguishing victims of violent crime from victims of prop-
erty offences) or demographic variables (for example, gender and age of the victim)
(Pemberton and Reynaers, 2011). Often, references are made to ‘what victims want’ (for
example, Strang, 2002; Braithwaite, 2002) and to whether measures ‘work’ or ‘don’t work’
for participating victims (compare Sanders et al., 2001, with Chalmers et al., 2007).
In contrast, the psychological and therapeutic literature widely acknowledges that
individual differences in psychological characteristics, personality traits and victimiza-
tion context have a large influence on victimization experience (for example, Bonanno
et al., 2011), to the extent that two demographically matched victims of identical crimes
may display different reactions and as a consequence may have different needs (Brewin
et al., 2000; Ozer et al., 2003). In other words, in therapeutic approaches it makes obvi-
ous sense to match treatment to the individual circumstances of the victim. This article
argues that this ‘matching’ is also relevant to the intersection between criminal justice
and victims of crime. Rather than investigating whether an instrument ‘works’ for vic-
tims in general, it is often more fruitful to investigate for which victims or under which
conditions an instrument works. The instrument of interest in the present article is the
class of measures referred to as the Victim Impact Statement (VIS).
The Victim Impact Statement: Purposes and functions
Victim participation in criminal justice proceedings can take different forms. One of the
instruments that enables victims to participate in the criminal justice procedure is the right
to deliver a VIS. Although the precise form of the VIS can vary – from a written statement
that primarily serves a function in awarding compensation to an oral statement that may
influence the sentence given to the offender (also referred to as a Victim Statement of
Opinion) – all have in common that they allow victims the right to express the harm they
have experienced as a part of the court proceedings (Erez, 2004). In the Netherlands, the
right to deliver an oral VIS was afforded to victims in 2005. The implementation of this
right was accompanied by the possibility for victims to submit 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 Explanatory Memorandum of the Oral Victim Impact Statement Act men-
tions four goals. First, a VIS may contribute to the information provision to the trial judge:
the VIS may help judges in imposing a ‘just’ sentence (Roberts and Erez, 2004). Some
even argue that a sentencing decision that does not take into account victim harm is
incomplete and unfair (Edwards, 2004). The second and third goals refer to its preventa-
tive purposes, which can be, on the one hand, general (that is, establishing societal norms)
and, on the other hand, specific (that is, decrease the relapse risk of the suspected offender).
Lens et al.
481
The fourth goal of the Act concerns the contribution of the VIS to the victim’s emotional
recovery. In particular, it is assumed that the delivery of a VIS may facilitate recovery
from the emotional harm that has been caused by the crime. However, the effectiveness of
a VIS in facilitating recovery is widely debated at a theoretical level (Pemberton and
Reynaers, 2011). Whereas some argue that the VIS is effective in helping victims to
recover from the crime, others suggest that the VIS may even be counterproductive, in the
sense that it may lead to secondary victimization. This is exemplified in contradictory
statements such as ‘VIS can work, do work (for those who bother to make them)’
(Chalmers et al., 2007) and ‘VIS, don’t work, can’t work’ (Sanders et al., 2001).
Victims’ perspectives on criminal justice
The relationship between victims of crime and criminal justice instruments (such as the
VIS) is complicated. This becomes evident when comparing the legal purposes and func-
tions of a particular instrument available to victims with victims’ perceptions of that
instrument. For example, victims may expect that their VIS will actually affect the out-
come of the process, when this may not be so (Edwards, 2001; Lens et al., 2010). In a
study by Lens et al. (2010), around 50 percent of the victims who delivered an oral VIS
in court declared that one of their motivations was to influence the sentence. However,
influencing the sentence given to the offender is not mentioned as one of the goals in the
Explanatory Memorandum of the Oral Victim Impact Statement Act. Moreover, victims
may differ in their views on the meaning and purposes of criminal justice procedures,
which makes ‘matching’ an instrument to the victim’s needs complicated: a VIS may
function as a means to award compensation, to reduce secondary victimization, to facili-
tate communication with the offender and/or allow the court to consider more closely the
human costs of the crime at sentencing (Erez, 2004; Roberts, 2009; Roberts and Erez,
2010). Previous research has repeatedly shown that the impact of crime, often defined in
terms of posttraumatic stress, anger and/or anxiety (for example, Orth and Maercker,
2009) may influence victims’ perspectives on criminal justice procedures and outcomes.
For example, increased levels of posttraumatic stress and anxiety will reduce the ability
of victims to engage directly with the offender in face-to-face mediation (Cheon and
Regehr, 2006; Winkel, 2007). Moreover, the psychological impact of crime is associated
with increased feelings of hostility (Orth and Wieland, 2006), revenge and retaliation
(Cardozo et al., 2003; Orth et al., 2006) and punitiveness (Canetti-Nisim et al., 2009;
Litvak et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2004), which suggests that the experienced severity
of crime heightens the importance of retributive justice and consequently of the
appropriateness/severity of the punishment meted out to the offender (see also Gromet
and Darley, 2009; Tripp et al., 2007; Wenzel et al., 2008). Conversely, improved adjust-
ment and coping are associated with forgiveness (Orth et al., 2008), which in turn is
related to a more conciliatory stance towards the offender (Armour and Umbreit, 2005)
and an increased emphasis on value-restorative outcomes (Wenzel et...
To continue reading
Request your trial