Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

confusion about the nature and purpose of VIS. Victims

often do not understand the true purpose of VIS or may

claim that they did not fill out such statements when, in

fact, they did. This may be because victims are ques-

tioned by a seemingly endless array of people and may

become confused about the purpose of particular inter-

views. Some jurisdictions have overcome this problem by

having victims prepare their own VIS rather than merely

provide the information to the investigating officer (in

some countries, probation or victim assistance staff).

In common-law jurisdictions, it was observed that

only a minority of all victims participate by submitting

a VIS. Analysis of court files and surveys of criminal

justice professionals, such as prosecutors and judges,

confirm that most sentencing hearings take place with-

out the benefit of an impact statement from the victim.

The likelihood of an impact statement being submitted

will depend on the nature and seriousness of the crime,

as well as many other variables. Victims of serious vio-

lent crimes are more likely to submit VIS.

IImmppaacctt ooff VVIISS oonn VViiccttiimmss’’

WWeellffaarree aanndd SSaattiissffaaccttiioonn

WWiitthh tthhee JJuussttiiccee SSyysstteemm

Findings on the effect of providing input into sen-

tencing are inconsistent with respect to the issue of vic-

tim welfare and satisfaction and suggest, at best,

modest effects. The lack of evidence on satisfaction,

however, may simply reflect a problematic implemen-

tation of the law. The level of satisfaction may also vary

with the type of offense committed. In some cases, fil-

ing VIS heightens victims’ expectations that they will

influence the outcome. When that does not happen, vic-

tims may be less satisfied than those who do not submit

a statement. In contrast, research has shown that in the

continental criminal justice systems (which allow vic-

tims a party status and let them provide significant

input into the proceedings, victims who participated as

subsidiary prosecutors or acted as private prosecutors

were more satisfied than victims who did not partici-

pate. These differences suggest that in jurisdictions in

which victims have more input into proceedings, levels

of satisfaction with justice are higher.

Restorative Justice, Therapeutic

Jurisprudence, and the VIS

Victims have benefited greatly from the worldwide

rise of interest in a new paradigm in justice known as

restorative justice.Restorative justice programs have

been created in many nations, both developed and

developing. These programs exist at all stages of the

criminal process, from pretrial conferences involving

victims and perpetrators to restorative programs that

arrange meetings between victims and prisoners. All

restorative justice programs share the same goal of

attempting to achieve something more than simply

punish the offender.

This approach to addressing crime assigns a promi-

nent role to the victim. Restorative justice advocates

argue that victims are better served by an attempt to

reconcile, where appropriate, the victim and the

offender. When this occurs, the offender accepts

responsibility for the offense, expresses remorse for

the crime, and often makes some practical form of

compensation to the crime victim. Under a purely ret-

ributive justice system, which privileges punishing the

offender, the benefit to the victim—beyond seeing the

offender punished—may be negligible. Another new

approach, known as therapeutic jurisprudence,

addresses the legal participants’ psychological wel-

fare. This perspective also offers an alternative to the

conventional retributive model of criminal justice, one

that assigns a very prominent role to the victim.

Although some researchers have questioned the

extent to which restorative justice proceedings serve

the interests of victims, this approach does focus atten-

tion on the connection between victims’ participation

and their welfare. The importance of victims’ voices in

proceedings, on the one hand, and victims’ roles in the

reentry of offenders (which is the ultimate purpose of

restorative justice), on the other, has been increasingly

recognized in justice practices around the world. This

change is due in part to victim advocates’ efforts on

behalf of victims and in part to research findings that

challenge prevailing beliefs and myths about victims’

interests, motives, and the consequences of input into

sentencing. Research has questioned the common

assumption that victims are vengeful by showing that

they can also be forgiving or merely expressive about

what they perceive as injustice (a lenient sentence or a

lack of compensation). Research indicates that many

crime victims, particularly victims of serious offenses,

are eager to describe their victimization experiences.

They want a voice to communicate a sense of the harm

they have sustained rather than wishing to influence

the sentence that is ultimately imposed.

Edna Erez and Julian Roberts

Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System——— 843

V-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 843