The Reactions of Prosecutors and Judges to Victim Impact Statements
| Author | Robert C. Davis,Barbara E. Smith,Madeline Henley |
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026975809400300206 |
| Published date | 01 January 1994 |
International
Review
ofVictimology,
1994,
Vol.
3
pp.
83-93
0269-7580/94
$10
©
1994
A B Academic Publishers
-Printed
in
Great Britain
THE
REACTIONS
OF
PROSECUTORS
AND
JUDGES
TO
VICTIM
IMPACT
STATEMENTS
MADELINE
HENLEY,
ROBERT
C.
DAVIS
and
BARBARA
E.
SMITH
Victim
Services
Agency,
3rdjloor, 2 Lafayette
St,
New
York,
NY/0007,
USA
ABSTRACT
This paper details the results of
two
studies that document
the
reactions of prosecutors
and
judges
to
victim impact statements. Criminal justice officials
were
asked
for
their
views
on the principle
of introducing victim impact statements
into
the criminal justice system
and
were
questioned about
their experiences
with
a program to prepare
and
distribute victim impact statements.
Both
studies
found
that
most
prosecutors
and
judges support victim impact statements
in
theory.
Yet,
when
presented
with
victim impact statements
and
asked
to
integrate
them
into their established routines,
a significant proportion of officials resisted
in
various
ways.
Explanations
for
the
observed
resistance
are
explored.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a movement to integrate victims into the criminal
justice system. Federal and state governments, local level criminal justice offi-
cials and victim advocates have initiated reforms intended to assure victims the
status
of
participants in the system.ln 1982, as part
of
this effort, the United States
federal government established a Presidential Task Force on Victims
of
Crime.
The Task Force recommended that victim impact statements-assessments
of
the
physical, financial and psychological effects
of
crime on individuals -be pre-
pared and distributed to judges prior to sentencing. That recommendation was
implemented when the 1982 Omnibus Victim and Witness Protection Act became
law,
~andating
that victim impact statements be provided at sentencing in federal
cases.
State legislatures have also been active in passing victim impact legislation.
As
of
1982, 12 states had passed victim impact statement laws (Hudson, 1984
);
by 1984, the number had climbed to 22 (Davis, Fischer and Pay kin, 1985). As
of
August 1987, 48 states had 'provisions authorizing some form
of
victim
participation in conjunction with sentence imposition' (McLeod, 1988; p. 3).
Specific legislative requirements vary by state. Depending on the jurisdiction,
victim impact information may be introduced at any
of
several points in the
criminal justice proceedings -at plea negotiations, sentencing
or
parole
hearings (McLeod, 1988). The party responsible for preparing the victim
impact information also varies, ranging from probation departments, prosecu-
tors' offices', to victim service agencies. Victim impact statements also differ
To continue reading
Request your trial