The VIS—as the concept is referred to in the United
States and Canada—or the victim personal statement
(VPS)—its counterpart in England and Wales—is a
statement in which the victim describes the impact of
the crime on his or her life, including physical, social,
psychological, and financial harms. The VIS may be
delivered at the sentencing hearing either in writing,
orally, or visually (in countries or jurisdictions that
allow victim allocution or presentations through a
video). Judges are encouraged, or in some jurisdictions
required, to take the VIS into account when determin-
ing sentence.AArrgguummeennttss ffoorr VViiccttiimm
PPaarrttiicciippaattiioonn aatt SSeenntteenncciinngg
Advocates of victims’ rights to participate in the
criminal justice process have advanced a variety of
arguments, some moral, some penological, and others
practical in nature. The idea of victim participation rec-
ognizes victims’ wishes to be treated as a party to the
proceeding. Allowing victims to participate in the crim-
inal process reminds judges, juries, and prosecutors that
behind the “state” there is an individual victim with an
interest in how the case is ultimately resolved. It is
argued that providing victims with input promotes pro-
portionality in sentencing because victims can provide
accurate information about the seriousness of the
crime. Victim participation may also lead to increased
victim satisfaction with the judicial process and coop-
eration with the criminal justice system. This, in turn,
may enhance the system’s effectiveness in bringing
offenders to justice. It may also increase perceptions of
the fairness of proceedings, because it will also allow
victims to be heard. The use of VIS may also promote
psychological healing by helping victims recover from
the emotional trauma associated with their victimiza-
tion. Finally, it may also alleviate some of the feelings
of helplessness that can arise as a result of the crime
and the inability on the part of victims to express them-
selves to judicial authorities.OObbjjeeccttiioonnss ttoo VViiccttiimm PPaarrttiicciippaattiioonn
Objections to victim participation at sentencing
range from assertions that vengeful justice will result to
predictions that the system will grind to a halt as a result
of the additional time needed to process cases.
Opponents of victim participation are reluctant to
expose the court to public pressure (created as aresponse to the victim input), from which it should prop-
erly be insulated. There are also concerns that the vic-
tim’s “subjective” account of events may take
precedence over the allegedly “objective” one pursued
by the court. The legal profession has found the prospect
of allowing material that may be highly emotional in the
courtroom unacceptable and argues that a victim’s input
into sentencing is irrelevant to any legitimate sentencing
considerations, lacks probative value in a system of pub-
lic prosecution, and is likely to be prejudicial.
Permission to deliver a VIS in person—exercising vic-
tim allocution right—has been regarded as particularly
objectionable, as an oral version in a very serious crime
may be very moving for the judge and this may increase
sentence severity or promote sentencing disparity.
Objections also included arguments that victim input
violates the fundamental principles of the adversarial
legal system, which do not recognize the victim as a
party to the proceedings. Including victims would trans-
form the trial between the state and the defendant into a
tripartite court proceeding (state-victim-offender). Such
practices, it was argued, belong only in the so-called
continental legal systems with adhesive prosecution or
partie civilprocedures or to restorative justice schemes.Research Findings on the
Effects of Victim ParticipationVViiccttiimm IInnppuutt IInnttoo SSeenntteenncciinnggResearch provides answers to some of the questions
raised in the debate about victim input into sentencing.
Although far from conclusive, this research suggests
that (a) victim participation does not result in delays or
clog the criminal justice system by protracting the time
taken to arrive at an adjudication; (b) victim participa-
tion does not always or necessarily result in harsher pun-
ishment of offenders; (c) victim participation has the
potential to increase victim satisfaction with the judicial
system; (d) many judges see a benefit in receiving crime
impact information directly from the victim by means of
VIS; (e) victim statements seldom include inflammatory
or prejudicial material that may bias the court against
the defendant; and (f) the implementation of victim
input laws is still problematic, as a result of which many
victims do not benefit from these reforms.
Research has demonstrated that in practice, many
victim-related reforms never reach victims. Victims either
are unaware of their rights to participate or elect
not to exercise them. Studies also reflect considerable842 ———Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice SystemV-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 842