Posted: February 14th, 2023

The Efficacy of Victim Impact Statements

Globally, victim impact statements are increasingly being used in criminal trials. Using local (Trinidad and Tobago), regional (Caribbean), and/or international literature, evaluate the efficacy of victim impact statements. You MUST also discuss three advantages and three disadvantages of using victim impacts statements in criminal trials.

Criminal Justice Systems:
The Efficacy of Victim Impact Statements

Name
Course
Professor
Due Date
Introduction
For a long time, crime victims were not given too much attention in the criminal justice system. However, since the 1970s, crime victims would start receiving necessary attention that within a short duration, several legislative reforms were made to provide them with compensation rights from the state, offender’s restitution, mental health supply, and constant updates on their criminal cases. Other nations would also enforce victim participation statutes that would give them a voice to provide input into decisions on sentencing, also known as the victim impact statements. Subsequently, the victim can influence how the criminal justice system will treat the offender.
Notably, the victim impact statements would raise a controversial and heated debate specifically on how effective on various aspects. Controversy would arise concerning whether they enhance the well-being of its victims or are counter-productive. The victims are risking experiencing secondary victimization from what they produce in the statements. The discussion has argued that the statements will lead to harsher, inequivalent, and conflicting sentences, which become an issue of concern in death penalty cases. Furthermore, it is argued that the motivation for using the statements presents a foreign, therapeutic, victim-focused model within the criminal justice systems. The different arguments presented in favor or dispute of the use of victim impact systems are substantial in determining their effectiveness.
To this effect, this research will shed light on the arguments on the effectiveness of the victim impact statements. The discussion will be considered from three levels: a domestic one focussing on Trinidad and Tobago, a regional level concentrating on the Caribbean region, and an international perspective. This discussion will provide both the advantages and disadvantages affiliated with the use of victim impact statements in criminal trials.
Background On Victim Impact Statements
The right of victims to provide their input on criminal trials is traced back to the efforts of significant movements seeking to revolutionize the criminal justice system. These movements sought to improve the predicaments of victims within the justice system, especially rectifying the conventional lack of victim input in the criminal trial proceedings. The activism on behalf of victims led to the implementation of laws that obligated compensation rights to victims by the state, offender’s restitution, counseling services, and victims participating in the sentencing matters. Victims would provide input on their experiences of the crime and the subsequent effects through the victim impact statements. The judges were required to consider the input given in the statement, which entails information on the physical or psychological harm experienced, any loss or damage that happened to their property, and any other suffering experienced due to the crime. Furthermore, the justice model preferred in the justice systems considers harm while determining how serious a crime was. Therefore, the statement on injuries and losses experienced by the direct victim is a substantial source of logical and reliable information. These movements ensured that the justice system shifted from individualizing the offender to the individualization of the victim.
Over time, the victim impact statements would be recognized in every state in the United States and the federal government in conjunction with Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The statements would grow from being used in murder cases solely into the entire spectrum of criminal cases. The global community also acknowledges the importance of integrating victims in criminal justice trials. The United Nations, in its Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender, established a declaration relating to the crime victims and abuse of powers. The declaration indicated that the input of victims is a fundamental component in the justice systems to ensure that they are fairly treated. The UN 1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power propelled the movement to empower victims. Subsequently, significant reforms within the criminal process happened internationally as victims now were given the rights, reasonable protections, and the ability to participate in the system.
The Use of the Victim Impact Statements In Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean Region
Trinidad and Tobago’s Parliament enacted the Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion And Plea Agreement) Bill, 2017, primarily enabling the prosecutor and the accused individual. They could be a suspect or a defendant in proceedings with the right to engage in plea discussions to establish a plea agreement. Notably, in Part 3 of the Bill, crime victims are given the right of providing the prosecutor with a victim impact statement to explain the physical harm, emotional harm, financial losses, and other effects that the offense caused on the victim. Before concluding the plea discussion, the prosecutor should inform the right of providing their input on the statement while also adhering to the restrictions specified in Section 14.
The use of victim impact statements as part of the restorative justice move that Trinidad and Tobago implemented in their criminal justice systems. The President acknowledged that the ‘tough on crime’ approach was not reducing its rates of crime and recidivism. Therefore, a focus on restoring human relationships that are broken or damaged due to the harm caused by an offender to a victim and the impact on the global community. Therefore, any judge in the country with restorative justice in mind will not ignore the input provided in the victim impact statements. This input would demonstrate the severity of the broken relationship from the harm identified. To this effect, they get proper direction on which sentencing would better ensure suitable punishment while restoring the broken relationships.
Despite the existence of this law, the statute and the common law have not provided proper directions on how the victim impact statements need to be considered in the court and the degree of weight affiliated with them during the process of sentencing. The judge in Brandon Lutchman, Aaron Lallan, Appellants vs. Police Constable Adesh Gookool Reg. No. 13341 would, however, consider the application of victim impact statements from Commonwealth jurisdictions. This is because it was the first that such an important subject matter was arising for discussion and consideration in the court. One of the jurisdictions considered was from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, specifically from the case of The Queen v Alberto Rosa De La Rosa. In this case, the court asserted that while the victim impact statements provide essential information to the judge, they should not be a means used by a victim to establish the quantum of a sentence that they believe the defendant should serve. Their courts are mandated to impose sentences that have considered the circumstance of the offender’s offense and even the consequences of the offense. However, the statements should not be the vehicle in which the victim can play a direct function in determining the right kind of sentence for the offense. A deep consideration of the judge’s comments on the victim impact statements is fundamental in understanding how the courts consider the victim impact statements.
Also, valuable insight from the courts on the victim impact statements was that they are admissible and need to concentrate on the impact solely and not be considered in the sentence. For the law to remain certain in their jurisdictions, sentencing needs to be an issue of public policy, which entails treating victims respectfully but not allowing them to stipulate the penalty. The persistent suffering undergone by the victim is an aggravation issue that needs to be considered. Still, the defendant could also have mitigating circumstances which also need to be considered to this effect. The sentencing part in a criminal trial remains a public function within the justice system that needs to be carried out by an impartial figure.
The Caribbean region acknowledges crime and security-related issues as a point of concern in their population. Trinidad and Tobago are afflicted with specifically high homicide rates compared to the nations dealing with armed conflict. Notably, 15% of the Caribbean adults within the capital city metropolitan areas are victims of different crimes. The victims have indicated that they have been victimized over four times annually. The repeat victimizations are worthy of attention which starts by acknowledging their input in the justice systems. However, the judge will consider these statements, but the latter still has discretion in determining the kind of sentence proper for the offender.
Arguments In Favor of Victims Impact Statements and the Effectiveness
The merits and disadvantages can determine the effectiveness of victim impact statements to the justice system. First, one of the roles of these statements is in the retributive account of sentencing. Retributive sentencing entails imposing a sentence that considers the severity of the offense and the culpability level of the offender. Therefore, in establishing the harm imposed or threatened, the court will need proof of the victim’s impact. The levels of severity cannot be determined deductively as it goes beyond the unrefined ranks given to offenses in terms of their relative seriousness. To this effect, determining the severity of an offense makes the input provided in the statement more plausible.
Through a victim impact statement, the victim can communicate with the offender. Typically, the sentence will carry a judicial communication for the crime’s victim. The sanctions imposed to make up the formal recognition that an individual was wronged and not just that they merely suffered unintended harm or loss. Therefore, allowing the statement of impact in court means that there has been an introduction of possible communication between the victim and the offender. Communication is expected to bring about remorse in the offender. Subsequently, the offender will feel remorseful and express it during the hearings, especially during sentencing. At this point, the victim will have shown the offender the impact of the crime and not the prosecutor. Generally, blame messages are weighty when close people share them. Also, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator in many of the crimes of violence will have preceded the crime’s commission. To this effect, communication between the two parties is streamlined with the removal of communication barriers.
It is also essential that the impact statement is a means of communication between the victim and the offender and the judge listening to the case. While extensive literature insists on how the impact statements communicate to the offender, there is a need to acknowledge that the communication does happen with the sentencing judge. This form of communication does not need to change the sentencing hearing into a proceeding of tripartriates or underscore the primary assumption of the adversarial system, that the crime was done against the state and not a private individual. The only challenge here is determining the kind of language to be used, considering there is still inconsistency on the disclosure requirements. Notably, the courts could consider whether the offender has read through the statement so that the jury knows if they accept responsibility and be remorseful.
Additionally, these statements have proven their utility in the restorative justice models of criminal justice, which is an alternative to the utilitarian or retributive models. The primary objective of restorative justice is achieving reconciliation between the victim and offender and restoring the offender to the community. This objective is unattainable in numerous criminal violence cases, especially if the offender does not accept responsibility and genuinely expresses remorse. This will happen when the offender understands the harm caused in its entirety on the individual community and their respective community. According to Duff and Marshall, the offender must get confronted with a genuine account of the offense they committed. Authenticity will be established when they hear the victim’s voice, allowing the offender to understand the human consequence of their actions. To this effect, the victim is allowed to communicate through the statements will ensure that the offender fully knows the consequences of their wrongs which is an essential step towards restorative justice.
Arguments Questioning the Effectiveness of Victim Impact Statements
The purpose of the victim impact statements is fundamental in determining their effectiveness. They are included in the justice system so that the offender can realize their wrongs and be remorseful and that the courts recognize the severity of the harm that needs to be considered in the sentencing decision. While the lawmakers and courts upheld the use of victim impact statements in the different jurisdictions, extensive knowledge would demonstrate that the statements are therapeutic tools for the victims with minimal impact on criminal trials. Many victims have indicated that the opportunity to fill in the impact statement can be fundamental in their healing as they jot down and share the authentic feelings of the incident. Even the United States Department of Justice stated that most of the victims filling up the statements did measure closure they could attain from the ordeal. Notably, with the understanding that these statements are effective in the mental health of the victims, a concern on what they are doing in the criminal justice system arises, considering judges do not entirely consider them in determining their sentences.
Additionally, more evidence on the victim impact statements demonstrated mixed help the victims get from them. Nonetheless, one that is sure is that victims are not part of a monolithic group. Victims will respond differently to harm, which at times can be complicated. Victim impact statements may not allow the complexity. For instance, victims are commonly told not to show anger or blame in their responses. The statements are written with the help of a prosecutor, which at times may hinder the attainment of the victim’s goals. There is no conclusive evidence that the statements aid victims of violent crimes or even if they help their families. To this effect, while victim services are fundamental to the victim’s wellness and their families, there is no need for them to be tied into participating in the criminal justice system. Also, the victim’s capacity to raise awareness within the public realm should not be tied to the courtrooms. Therefore, while victim impact statements do have the victim in mind, their settings can be contradictory to achieving their objectives.
The victim impact statements have also failed in specifying the objective of permitting the evidence or the specific impact information before the courtroom. The statements also have no practical guidelines on how the court should consider the information provided in the statements. This vague nature in the provisions reflects the uncertainties and absence of conceptual clarity that surrounds the victim impact statements. It is sufficient to say that the lawmakers created the victim input regimes but clarified the statements to the courts. As seen from the ambiguous provisions, it becomes challenging to promote a transparent and consensual comprehension of the role of these impact statements. The victims and criminal justice professionals can be confused about the ultimate objectives of the statements. If the law stipulated that the reason for asking victim input, provide some clarity on how the information is to be used by the sentencing courts, and even directed them to overlook the recommendations given by the victim, then the consideration of the evidence by courts would be standard. Also, the challenge of heightening unrealizable expectations from victims would not happen. Nonetheless, the current status of the statements is filled with ambiguity and lacking clarity that its application and effectiveness cannot be standardized for involved parties.
Concerns on the victim impact statements also arise because the focus can mainly be on the legal arguments relating to justice and natural justice. Some commentators indicated that its input undermines that insulation of the court from unwanted public pressure, or it could lead to substitution of the victim’s subjective approach rather than the objective one being implemented, victim’s input can become a source of inconsistencies and disparities in the sentences since they will rely, on the personality attributes of the victim or how thorough the statement is.
Other concerns related to the presumed negative impacts of integrating victims in the criminal justice process. Generally, their inclusion would mean that the probability of delays and further costs increases in the already overwhelmed justice system. Prosecutors generally refuse to have the input from victims since they are afraid of their prosecutorial control on cases to be mitigated. Defense attorneys naturally perceive a greater involvement of victims as a stumbling block to the defense. Others indicate that this input adds minimal information considering that the offense definitions typically have built in the expected victim harm and the aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, unexpected effects or consequences, especially on vulnerable victims, should not be considered in sentencing. Practically, the participation of victims through the victim impact statements is expected to be minimally relevant to jurisdictions that deploy the determinate sentencing model that has restricted the jury’s discretion.
Notably, victim impact statements have been seen to improve the wellness of victims due to the closure they get and communication they have with the offender. Nonetheless, for them to bring this input, it aggravates their psychological wellbeing as they relieve the crime ordeal. The victim may also not want the offender to fully know of the harm they caused, limiting the offender’s learning and the remorse they should feel for the wrongdoing. Victims may have heightened expectations of what should happen in the sentencing decisions. However, the courts have agreed on considering the information on determining this variety of offenses but not on sentencing decisions which is a massive disappointment to the victims with high expectations from their impact statements.
The different concerns raised on these victim impact statements are why places such as Trinidad and Tobago and, ultimately, the Caribbean region have little information to demonstrate how the statements have been adequate to their justice systems. Victim satisfaction is an ambiguous concept that is prone to several interpretations and responses easily influenced by numerous events. Therefore, it is time that the purposes of victim impact statements are carefully reviewed since they are not achieving what they need to do within the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
Victim services are essential to their well-being and that of their families. Through the victim impact statements, different justice systems, including Trinidad and Tobago, have learned of the experiences of crime victims. From these statements, the system can deduce the severity of the harm and the subsequent losses suffered. Notably, the victim can open up, which is a starting step to coping with the ordeal. Nonetheless, an analysis of these statements’ effectiveness in the criminal justice systems, their impacts remain questionable. The criminal justice system is required to fulfill its obligations adequately which is to give equal and fair justice. Nonetheless, the incorporation of these statements in the criminal trials only poses the risk of influencing the judges’ decisions affecting their impartiality negatively. Most victims hold their viewpoints on the crime and would want maximum punishment on the offender to learn their lesson. Nonetheless, their viewpoints remain subjective based on their experiences. Judges need to be objective in their decisions. To this effect, it would be considered to indicate that victim impact statements are ineffective in the criminal justice systems coupled with the lack of proof from Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean region, and the international community.

Bibliography
“OHCHR | Basic Principles Of Justice For Victims Of Crime And Abuse Of Power”. 2021. Ohchr.Org. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/victimsofcrimeandabuseofpower.aspx.
Bajpai,G.S. “Mainstreaming victims of crimes: It is time to make victim impact statements mandatory” , Centre for Criminology and Victimology, National Law University Delhi & Editor, Journal of Victimology & Victim Justice.
Bandes, Susan. 2021. “What Are Victim-Impact Statements For?”. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/what-are-victim-impact-statements-for/492443/.
Crime, Violence. “Development: Trends, Costs and Policy Options in the Caribbean,(Report No. 37820).” The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Latin America and the Caribbean Region of the World Bank March (2007).
Duff, Antony, and Robert Alexander Duff. Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001.
Duff, R. Antony, and Sandra E. Marshall. “Communicative Punishment and the Role of the Victim.” Criminal Justice Ethics 23, no. 2 (2004): 39-50.
Erez, Edna, and Leigh Roeger. “The effect of victim impact statements on sentencing patterns and outcomes: The Australian experience.” Journal of Criminal Justice 23, no. 4 (1995): 363-375.
Erez, Edna, and Linda Rogers. “Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes. The perspectives of legal professionals.” British Journal of Criminology 39, no. 2 (1999): 216-239.
Erez, Edna. Victim impact statements. No. 33. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1991.
Hoyle, Carolyn, and Lucia Zedner. “Victims, Victimization, and the Criminal Process.” In Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th ed). Oxford University Press, 2007.
Lutchman, Brandon; Lallan, Aaron v Gookool, Adesh PC (Regimental No.13341). http://webopac.ttlawcourts.org/LibraryJud/Judgments/coa/2018/mohammed_m/Mag_18_S025DD19nov2019.pdf.
Pemberton, Antony, and Sandra Reynaers. “The controversial nature of victim participation: Therapeutic benefits in victim impact statements.” Available at SSRN 1745923 (2011).
Roberts, Julian V. “Listening to the crime victim: Evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole.” Crime and Justice 38, no. 1 (2009): 347-412.
Sanders, Andrew, Carolyn Hoyle, Rod Morgan, and Ed Cape. “Victim impact statements: Don’t work, can’t work.” Criminal Law Review (2001).
Schuster, Mary Lay. “Victim Impact Statements—Do They Make a Difference.” Watch Post 14 (2006): 1-6.
Seepersad, Randy. “Crime and violence in Trinidad and Tobago.” IDB Series on Crime and Violence in the Caribbean, Inter-American Development Bank, June (2016): 86-87.
Sutton, Heather, and Inder Ruprah. “Restoring paradise in the Caribbean: Combatting violence with numbers.” (2017).
THE PRESIDENT REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, 2021. Restorative Justice Address.
The Queen v Alberto Rosa De La Rosa, Criminal Case No. 22 of 2014
Trinidad and Tobago, House Of Representatives, The Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion And Plea Agreement) Bill, 2017, Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, 2nd Session, http://news.gov.tt/sites/default/files/E-Gazette/Gazette%202017/Bills/HOR/Bill%20No.%2013%20of%202017.pdf