Talk:Victim impact statement

untitled
making some minor sanity changes and internationalised the article somewhat

Some of the original article is bizarre and misleading for UK/Australian law at least, and I'd be surprised if generally true for US - that the victim suggests sentence or punishment? I don't know about elsewhere, but in UK/Australian law that's crazy: the legion reasons can be summarised that (a) it's the Judge's job to decide sentence and (b) it's a misconception of the role of the VIS to go beyond informing the court to entering the court's decision making. Among other things, it would undermine the 'restorative' notion of VIS's by creating a false notion that victims are having a say in the sentence when they don't - the Judge solely determines.

That said, there's some programs, usually juvenile ones, where the victim and offender reconcile and agree on reparation etc.

also changed 'murder', because there's a great many crimes distinct from murder that result in a dead victim. dangerous driving, criminal negligence, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.58.159 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikified
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

UK?
I think that this article could be improved with some mention of the usage and effects of "Victim impact statements" in the UK. There is some relevant press coverage available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.53.9 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal name in england and wales is Victim Personal Statements.©Geni (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Material for a criticism or controversy section
There is some material for a controversy or criticism section in this article from the New Yorker : ""It was Thurgood Marshall’s turn to dissent. The Court, he noted, did not ordinarily reverse course so quickly. What changed was “neither the law nor the facts” but “only the personnel of this Court.” In his view, victim-impact evidence draws “the jury’s attention away from the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime to such illicit considerations as the eloquence with which family members express their grief and the status of the victim in the community.” Legal scholars tended to agree. A leading critic, the DePaul law professor Susan Bandes, wrote that victim-impact statements “appeal to hatred, the desire for undifferentiated vengeance, and even bigotry,” and “may block the sentencer’s ability to perceive the essential humanity of the defendant.” Moreover, she argued, “in their insistence on evaluating the worth of the victims,” victim-impact statements “offend the dignity of the victim as well.” In both capital and non-capital cases, victim-impact evidence has been shown to affect sentencing: that’s why prosecutors introduce it. Research also suggests that, though victims of violent crime are disproportionately poor and nonwhite, white victims are twice as likely as black victims to make victim-impact statements. Where jurors identify victims as “respectable,” they tend to identify with them (finding their lives to be similar to their own), while they rarely identify with defendants (whose lives tend to be very different from theirs). Jurors also report being less compelled by victim-impact statements made by black victims than by those made by white victims. And victim-impact evidence appears to amplify the commonly held prejudice that people with darker skin are more “deathworthy.” Finally, Bandes explains, the statements leave judges wondering whether, for example, they are supposed to mete out a more severe punishment on behalf of the rape victim who gives a more compelling statement.""

And :

""Critics remain. Nancy Gertner, a former district-court judge from Massachusetts, is among those who have questioned Judge Aquilina’s conduct at Larry Nassar’s sentencing. Gertner told me, “The question is whether the victims needed that, as bloodletting, and the question is should the justice system allow that? Or is it a throwback to public hanging?” Scott Sundby, a former prosecutor who studies capital juries, told me that the Nassar sentencing reminded him of Biblical punishments. “Hey, we all get to pick up a rock and throw it at this person!” Sundby says that victim-impact evidence has changed how juries think about the death penalty. In jury rooms, they ask, “How can we go out and look the mother in the eye unless we give a death penalty?” Among the achievements of the victims’-rights movement is the fact that victim-impact evidence is no longer much questioned. Sundby thinks that’s because people gave up trying to argue that the courts are wholly rational."" MonsieurD (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)