Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Victim Input at Sentencing

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_328

Overview

This encyclopedia entry surveys victim rights at sentencing in adversarial justice systems and explores the continuing debate surrounding victims’ claim to have a voice in the sentencing of “their” offender. Although victims claim input at various stages of the criminal process – from bail to parole – the sentencing process is of most significance to victims. At the same time, victim input at sentencing generates the most opposition among scholars and practitioners, making the topic of continuing significance to criminal justice professionals as well as victims and their advocates. The essay reviews the arguments for and against victim input at sentencing and the empirical research which has explored the effects of victim-related reforms in the area of sentencing.

Introduction

Within the adversarial model of justice, a criminal trial is construed as a conflict between two theoretically equal adversaries – the state and the defendant – played out before an impartial adjudicator...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Ashworth A (2002) Restorative rights and restorative justice. Br J Criminol 42:578–595Google Scholar
  2. Bandes S (2009) Victims, “closure”, and the sociology of emotion. Law Contemp Probl 72(2):1–26Google Scholar
  3. Beloof D, Cassell P, Twist S (2010) Victims in criminal procedure. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassell PG (2009) In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State J Crim Law 6:611–648Google Scholar
  5. Cassell PG, Erez E (2011) Victim impact statements and ancillary harm: the American perspective. Can Crim Law Rev 15(2):150–204Google Scholar
  6. Cattaneo LB, Goodman LA (2010) Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: the relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. J Interpers Violence 25(3):481–502Google Scholar
  7. Davis R, Smith B (1994) Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction: an unfulfilled promise? J Crim Justice 22:1–12Google Scholar
  8. Dichter ME, Cerulli C, Kothari CL, Barg FK, Rhodes KV (2011) Engaging with criminal prosecution: the victim’s perspective. Women Crim Justice 21(1):21–37Google Scholar
  9. Englebrecht CM (2011) The struggle for “Ownership of Conflict”: an exploration of victim participation and voice in the criminal justice system. Crim Justice Rev 38(2):129–151Google Scholar
  10. Erez E, Bienkowska E (1993) “Victim Participation in Proceedings and Satisfaction with Justice in the Continental Legal Systems: The Case of Poland.” J Crim Justice 21:47–60Google Scholar
  11. Erez E (1994) Victim participation in sentencing: and the debate goes on. Int Rev Victimol 3:17–32Google Scholar
  12. Erez E, Roeger L, Morgan F (1994) Victim Impact Statements in South Australia: An Evaluation. Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics, South Australian Attorney- General's DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  13. Erez E, Rogers L (1999) Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes. Br J Criminol 39:216–239Google Scholar
  14. Erez E, Tontodonato P (1990) The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology 28:451–474Google Scholar
  15. Erez E, Tontodonato P (1992) Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Q 9:393–415Google Scholar
  16. Erez E, Kilchling M, Wemmers J (eds) (2011a) Therapeutic jurisprudence and victim participation in justice: international perspectives. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  17. Erez E, Ibarra PR, Downs DM (2011b) Victim participation reforms in the United States and victim welfare: a therapeutic jurisdiction perspective. In: Erez E, Kilchling M, Wemmers J (eds) Victim participation in proceedings and therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, South Carolina, pp 15–39Google Scholar
  18. Haynes SH (2011) The effects of victim-related contextual factors on the criminal justice system. Crime Delinq 57(2):298–328Google Scholar
  19. Hellerstein D (1989) Victim impact statement: reform or reprisal? Am Crim Law Rev 27:391–430Google Scholar
  20. Herman S (2011) Parallel justice for victims of crime. National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillenbrand S, Smith B (1989) Victim rights legislation: an assessment of its impact on criminal justice practitioners and victims. American Bar Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime (1982) Final report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Roberts JV (2009) Listening to the crime victim: evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts JV, Manikis M (2010) Victim impact statements at sentencing: exploring the relevance of ancillary harm. Can Crim Law Rev 15(1):1–29Google Scholar
  25. Roberts JV, Manikis M (2011) Victim personal statements at sentencing: a review of the empirical research. Office of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of England and Wales, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Strang H (2002) Repair or revenge: victims and restorative justice. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Tobolowsky PM et al (2010) Crime victim rights and remedies, 2nd edn. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Department of Justice (1998) New directions from the field: victims’ rights and services for the 21st century. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Walklate S (2007) Handbook on victims and victimology. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  30. Wemmers J (1996) Victims in the criminal justice system. Kugler, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Zappala S (2010) The rights of victims v. the rights of the accused. J Int Crim Justice 8(1):137–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law, and JusticeUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Law, Centre for CriminologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK