Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

Navigation

Victim impact statements: Some concerns about current practice and proposed changes

Jun 28, 2011

from the article by Chris Marshall in Rethinking Crime and Punishment:

Currently victims have the right to submit a VIS in a variety of ways, though it is usually in writing, and to request the opportunity to present the statement in open court. The judge has the discretion to deny this request and to edit the statement if there are concerns about its length or content. Under the new proposal, victims will have the right to use their own words in the VIS and “to address the offender so that the offender may better perceive the impact of the offence on the victim”. For serious offences (s.29 of the Victims Rights Act), victims will have an automatic right to present their VIS in court, though the judge retains the right to manage the process.

....One troubling feature is the way a VIS can serve to demonise an offender in the public mind, especially in particularly graphic cases that attract high-level media attention. While the statements may evoke compassion for victims, which is positive, they may also stir up hatred, fear, anger and disgust towards the defendant, which is surely negative. Generating disgust towards specific persons or groups in society is extremely perilous.

....A second matter of concern is whether the VIS actually encourages genuine or lasting empathy for victims. As a brief snapshot in time, the VIS can never do justice to the complexity and variability of a victim’s experience. Nor does it allow the subject’s unique identity and particularity to emerge.

....A third concern about the VIS is its non-dialogical nature. According to Simon Power, a chief goal of the VIS is to enable victims “to address the offender so that the offender may better perceive the impact of the offence on the victim”. But if the statement is addressed to the offender, surely the addressee should have the opportunity to respond in some appropriate way to the victim’s comments. Otherwise, the statement is spoken at the offender or about the offender, but not to the offender.

Read the whole article.

Document Actions

Sara Ferah
Sara Ferah says:
Jun 28, 2011 05:18 PM

Analogous to the demonization of an offender in the public mind, is the pathologization of the victim in the public mind. The pathologization of the victim is the idea that the victim is broken beyond repair. This can reinforce itself if this idea is taken up by people close to the victim, and if the victim internalizes this belief that they are permanently broken, it can interfere with healing. <br /> <br />I am not sure what is meant by &quot;lasting empathy for victims&quot;, but as victims heal and hopefully change into survivors, and then even into thrivers; it is only appropriate that the emotional orientation of the public, and of people around the victim-survivor-thriver, also change how they percieve and relate to the victim-S-T. <br /> <br />I think that this statement is only partially correct: <br /> <br />&quot;But if the statement is addressed to the offender, surely the addressee should have the opportunity to respond in some appropriate way to the victim’s comments.&quot; <br /> <br />This would be true if both sides were on equal grounds, but a victim has had power and rights and needs stolen from them; so it will not always be justice, to let the offender get the last word. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting. Comments are moderated.

RJOB Archive
View all

About RJOB

Donate

 

Correspondents

Eric Assur portlet image

 

LN-blue
 

 lp-blue

 

lr

 

dv-blue

 

kw-blue

 

mw-blue