One rule for the goose, one for the gander? Wrongfulness and harmfulness in determining reactions to offenders and victims of crime

People’s reactions to offenders and victims of crime follow different rationales. Whereas the punishment of the offender is primarily determined by the severity of the crime (which includes its foreseeable harmful consequences), the actual harm that is experienced by the victim drives the need for his or her support and assistance. With the introduction of the Victim Impact Statement (VIS), in which victims are allowed to express the (harmful) consequences of the crime on their lives, the question is raised whether allowing such victim input during criminal proceedings would influence the offender’s sentence. The main goal of the current research is to disentangle how a crime’s wrongfulness and harmfulness influence people’s reactions to offenders and victims. We show that, whereas people’s perceptions of the offender (and the outcome of the trial) are influenced by the severity of the crime, people’s judgements related to the victim are more likely to be influenced by an interaction between the severity of the crime and the experienced harm of the crime. That is, in this study no support was found for the argument that the delivery of a VIS would lead to a violation of the proportionality principle.

Parole Release Decisions: Impact of Positive and Negative Victim and Nonvictim Input on a Representative Sample of Parole-Eligible Inmates

This study analyzed administrative data from the New Jersey State Parole Board to determine the extent to which victim and nonvictim input impacted parole release decisions. Positive and negative input, in both verbal and written forms, was studied for a representative sample of 820 parole-eligible adult inmates. Victim input was not found to be a significant predictor of parole release; measures of institutional behavior, crime severity, and criminal history were significant. Though insignificant, verbal input had a greater effect than written input. Results suggest that the impact of victim input is not generalizable across different types of offenders or across different paroling jurisdictions. It can no longer be assumed that victim rights laws and public participation at parole guarantee victim-desired outcomes.

The Vengeful Victim? Assessing the Attitudes of Victims Participating in Restorative Youth Conferencing

The task of delineating an appropriate role for the victim in the criminal justice system has been the subject of considerable debate in academia and policy circles for some time. While victim participation is considered something of a sine qua non of the restorative paradigm, many commentators remain sceptical of victim input in conventional sentencing on the grounds that it may lead to the imposition of overly harsh or onerous obligations. Drawing on evidence from a major evaluation of youth conferencing in Northern Ireland, this article challenges the assumption that victims are essentially punitive parties, and calls for a rethink of some of the fundamental values and assumptions that have traditionally resulted in their exclusion and even alienation in the criminal justice system.

Victim Harm, Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction with Justice: An Australian Experience

In the debate surrounding victim input into sentencing, a major argument in favor of using victim impact statements (VIS) centered on the presumed effect of VIS on victim satisfaction with justice. Drawing upon procedural justice theory, this article examines the validity of the arguments concerning increased satisfaction with justice through a survey of felony crime victims in South Australia. The study sheds light on the factors that affect victim satisfaction with sentencing, and questions the presumed increased effect of VIS on satisfaction with justice. Further, it suggests a negative impact via unfulfilled expectations. The implications of the findings for VIS as an element of procedural justice are drawn and discussed.

Victim Participation in Sentencing: And the Debate Goes On …

The right of victims in adversarial legal systems to provide input into sentencing decisions is still controversial. The paper presents the various forms victim input takes and the arguments for and against its use in sentencing. It then surveys the relevant research that has addressed these arguments and examines the implementation of this right. The article concludes that victim input may have some beneficial results for victims and for the justice system, without any of the predicted adverse effects on them.