Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Narratives of Ideal and Deviant Victims in Judges’ Capital Sentencing Decisions

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the Victim’s Rights Movement has led to advances for victims of crime, the use of victim impact evidence in criminal trials remains controversial due to the suspicion that such evidence enhances punitive attitudes and arbitrariness in capital sentencing outcomes. Despite a growing body of literature in this area, it remains unclear if some victims are viewed more favorably than others, particularly from the perspective of judges. The current study examines the construction of victims by judges in capital cases and how this portrayal impacts sentencing outcomes in Delaware, which vests the final capital sentencing authority in judges rather than juries. In examining this gap in the literature, we consider if judges make distinctions between ideal and deviant victims, if these distinctions are associated with victim and offender characteristics, and if the construction of victims impacts offender sentencing. Findings from this study lend support to the idea that judges describe some victims as more “worthy” than others, that victims described in ideal ways are more likely to be white and female, and that “ideal victims” are more likely to result in death sentences.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 2001–2011 represent all years available at the time of the study in which Delaware court opinions were digitized and available online.

  2. It should be noted that when a defendant is convicted of multiple murders in the same trial, Delaware law requires a separate sentence to be imposed for each killing. In other words, a defendant convicted of killing two persons can be sentenced to two death sentences, two life sentences, or one life and one death sentence.

  3. It should be noted that it is possible for the same victim to have multiple vote counts if he or she was killed by multiple offenders.

References

  • American Judicature Society, (2012). Judicial selection in the states. Retreived August 6, 2012 from http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm.

  • Baldus, D. C., & Woodworth, G. (2003). Race discrimination and the death penalty: An empirical and legal overview. In J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm, & C. S. Lanier (Eds.), America’s experiment with capital punishment (2nd ed., pp. 501–551). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 361–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (1999). Random violence. How we talk about new crimes and new victims. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, W. J., Sandys, M., & Steiner, B. D. (1998). Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors’ predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1476–1556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brace, P., & Boyea, B. D. (2007). Judicial selection methods and capital punishment in the American states. Pp. 186–203 in Running for judge: The rising political, financial, and legal stakes of judicial elections, edited by M.J. Streb. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. R., & Raphael, S. (2003). Life terms or death sentences: The uneasy relationship between judicial elections and capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 609–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, R. (2003). Litigating with victim impact testimony: The serendipity that has come from Payne v. Tennessee. Cornell Law Review, 88, 517–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (2003). Victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 306–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, M. (2000). Due process limitations on victim impact evidence. Capital defense journal, 13, 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. (1991). Victim impact statements. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Australian Institute of Criminology, 33, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Laster, K. (1999). Neutralizing victim reform: Legal professionals’ perspectives on victims and victim impact statements. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 530–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Rogers, L. (1999). Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes: The perspectives of legal professionals. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 216–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1990). The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcomes. Criminology, 28, 451–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Harvard University Press

  • Ferraro, K. (2006). Neither angels nor demons: Women, crime, and victimization. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, L. K., Loughran, T. A., Smith, M. D., Fogel, S. J., & Bjerregaard, B. (2013). Exploring the role of victim sex, victim conduct, and victim-defendant relationship in capital punishment sentencing. Homicide Studies, Online first

  • Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 5, 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2011). Political ideology and reactions to crime victims: Preferences for restorative and punitive responses. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(4), 830–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1997). Commonsense justice and capital punishment: Problematizing the ‘Will of the People’. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 303–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinstuber, R. (2013). ‘We’re All Born With Equal Opportunities’: Hegemonic Individualism and Contextual Mitigation Among Delaware Capital Jurors. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, 1, 152–180.

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.

  • Langton, L., Planty, M., & Truman, J. (2013). Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin, National Crime Victimization Survey, Criminal Victimization, 2012. Retrieved on February 6, 2014 from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf.

  • Logan, W. A. (1999). Through the past darkly: A survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madriz, E. (1997). Images of criminals and victims: A Study on women’s fear and social control. Gender & Society, 11(3), 342–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. K. (1997). Thou shalt not kill any nice people: The problem of victim impact statements in capital sentencing. American Criminal Law Review, 35, 93–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinello, D. (1995). The impact of judicial-selection method on State-Supreme-Court policy: Innovation, reaction, and atrophy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report. (1982). Retrieved on February 6, 2014 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/presdntstskforcrprt/87299.pdf.

  • Propen, A. D., & Schuster, M. L. (2010). Understanding genre through the lens of advocacy: The rhetorical work of the victim impact statement. Written Communication, 27, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial response. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A., Hoyle, C., Morgan, R., & Cape, E. (2001). Victim Impact Statements: Don’t Work, Can’t Work, Criminal Law Review, 447–458.

  • Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime : how the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundby, S. E. (2003). The capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Cornell Law Review, 88, 343–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang, M. E. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

  • Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).

  • Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

  • Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

  • Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

  • South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA, 02125, USA

    Heather Zaykowski & Caitlin McDonough

  2. Division of Social Sciences, 101 Krebs Hall, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, 450 Schoolhouse Lane, Johnstown, PA, 15904, USA

    Ross Kleinstuber

Authors
  1. Heather Zaykowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ross Kleinstuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caitlin McDonough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Zaykowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaykowski, H., Kleinstuber, R. & McDonough, C. Judicial Narratives of Ideal and Deviant Victims in Judges’ Capital Sentencing Decisions. Am J Crim Just 39, 716–731 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9257-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9257-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation