Advertisement

Victim Impact Statements in Capital Sentencing: 25 Years Post-Payne

  • Bryan MyersEmail author
  • Sarah Johnson
  • Narina Nuñez
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Psychology and Law book series (APL, volume 3)

Abstract

Victim Impact Statements (VIS) in capital sentencing proceedings have been the subject of debate among justices in three critical U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Booth v. Maryland, 1987; South Carolina v. Gathers, (1989); Payne v. Tennessee, 1991), as well as among numerous legal commentators. The controversy surrounding VIS will be described in detail, focusing specifically on these critical decisions, in addition to outlining the arguments posited by legal scholars. The controversial issues concerning VIS largely address: (1) their relevance to blameworthiness and capacity to distract jurors from their principal role, and (2) their inflammatory appeal and potential to promote arbitrariness in sentencing. Prior to the Payne decision, there was no research that specifically addressed the effects of VIS on jurors in capital sentencing. Since that time, numerous studies have examined VIS and sentencing. Some consistency in findings have begun to emerge regarding important issues such as the emotional appeal of VIS, as well as the degree to which VIS operate as an expression of harm. The empirical research examining the effects of VIS is described, and gaps in our existing research and areas which merit future investigation are considered.

Keywords

Victim Impact Statements Capital Sentencing Jury decision making Emotions Jurors 

References

  1. Aguirre, A., Davin, R. P., Baker, D. V., & Lee, K. (2010). Sentencing outcomes, race, and victim impact evidence in California: A pre- and post-Payne comparison. The Justice Professional: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 11, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.1999.9959510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.556 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrigo, B. A., & Williams, C. R. (2003). Victim vices, victim voices, and impact statements: On the place of emotion and the role of restorative justice in capital sentencing. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703252408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ask, K., & Landstrom, S. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law Human Behavior, 34, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin, R. (2010). Documentation, documentary, and the law: What should be made of victim impact videos? Cardozo Law Review, 31, 979–1017.Google Scholar
  6. Bandes, S. A. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 361–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandes, S. A. (1999). Reply to Paul Cassell: What we know about victim impact statements. Utah Law Review, 2, 545–552.Google Scholar
  8. Bandes, S. A. (2009). Victims, “closure,” and the sociology of emotion. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72, 1–29.Google Scholar
  9. Bandes, S. A., & Blumenthal, J. A. (2012). Emotion and the law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/anurev-lawosci-102811-173825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baumer, E. P., Messner, S. F., & Felson, R. B. (2000). The role of victim characteristics in the disposition of murder cases. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000096331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blume, J. H. (2003). Ten years of Payne: Victim impact evidence in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 257–281.Google Scholar
  14. Blumenthal, J. A. (2001). The admissibility of victim impact statements at capital sentencing: Traditional and nontraditional perspectives. Drake Law Review, 50, 67–91.Google Scholar
  15. Blumenthal, J. A. (2009). Affective forecasting and capital sentencing: Reducing the effect of victim impact statements. American Criminal Law Review, 46, 107–125.Google Scholar
  16. Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Booth v Maryland. 482 U.S. 496. 1987.Google Scholar
  18. Boppre, B., & Miller, M. K. (2014). How victim and execution impact statements affect jurors’ perceptions, emotions, and verdicts. Victims and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, 9, 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.845124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Brewer, T. W. (2004). Race and jurors’ receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors’, defendants’, and victims’ race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046432.41928.2b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Butler, B. (2008). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ susceptibility to victim impact statements. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1492, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701483534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014640025871 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cassell, P. G. (2009). In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 611–648.Google Scholar
  25. Conover v. State 933 P. 2d. 1074, 1085–1086 (Okla Crim. App. 1997).Google Scholar
  26. Costanzo, S., & Costanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision-making under the special issues framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crime Victim’s Rights Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Curry, T. R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Curry, L. (2011). The elusive right to cross-examine individuals presenting victim impact statements in Arizona capital sentencing proceedings. Arizona State Law Journal, 43, 563–589.Google Scholar
  30. Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. E. (1994). Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction: An unfulfilled promise? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90044-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Death Penalty Information Center (2017). .Legal issues: States that allow victim impact statements. Retrieved from www.deathpenalty.org/legalissues.
  33. Deise, J., & Paternoster, R. (2013). More than a “quick glimpse of the life”: The relationship between victim impact evidence and death sentencing. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 40(3), 611–652.Google Scholar
  34. Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10(3/4), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Diamond, S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dorland, M., & Krauss, D. (2005). The danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law & Psychology Review, 29, 63–105.Google Scholar
  37. Duncan, M. G. (1994). In slime and darkness: The metaphor of filth in criminal justice. Tulane Law Review, 68, 725–801.Google Scholar
  38. Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (2003). Symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom: Victim characteristics and victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 306–342.Google Scholar
  39. Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  40. Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Englebrecht, C. M., & Chavez, J. M. (2014). Whose statement is it? An examination of victim impact statements delivered in court. Victims & Offenders, 9(4), 386–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.838615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Erez, E. (1999). Who’s afraid of the big bad victim? Victim impact statements as victim empowerment and enhancement of justice. Criminal Law Review, 1, 345–356.Google Scholar
  43. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Feigenson, N., & Park, J. (2006). Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Flamm, J. D. (1999). Due process on the “unchartered seas of irrelevance”: Limiting the presence of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing after Payne v. Tennessee. Washington & Lee Law Review, 56, 295–342.Google Scholar
  46. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Forsterlee, L., Fox, G. B., Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime? Australian Psychologist, 39(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005006041000166035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Frankel, J. (2008). Payne, victim impact statements, and nearly two decades of devolving standards of decency. New York City Law Review, 12, 87–128.Google Scholar
  49. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
  50. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S., 349 (1977).Google Scholar
  51. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–1576. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Garvey, S. P., Johnson, S., & Marcus, P. (2000). Correcting deadly confusion: Responding to jury inquiries in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 85, 627–655.Google Scholar
  53. Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in 1st degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199908/09)29:5/6<781::AID-EJSP960>3.0.CO;2-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of victim impact statements on sentencing in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v07n02_03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).Google Scholar
  59. Hackett, L., Day, A., & Mohr, P. (2008). Expectancy violation and perceptions of rape victim credibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X228458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Hall, D. J. (1991). Victims’ voices in criminal court: The need for restraint. American Criminal Law Review, 38, 233–266.Google Scholar
  62. Haney, C. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1447–1486. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). “Modern” death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Haney, C., Weill, J., & Lynch, M. (2015). The death penalty. In B. L. Cutler & P. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology, Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (Vol. 2, pp. 451–510). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  66. Harden, A. N. (2010). Drawing the line at pushing “play”: Barring video montages as victim impact evidence at capital sentencing trials. Kentucky Law Journal, 99, 845–879.Google Scholar
  67. Henderson, L. N. (1985). The wrongs of victim’s rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937–985. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Henry, S., Barlow, M., Mitchell, K., Broszkiewicz, N., & Myers, B., et al. Eliciting empathy in capital jurors: The effect of victim impact statements. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society (Div 41), New Orleans, LA, March 2014.Google Scholar
  69. Hillenbrand, S. W., & Smith, B. E. (1989). Victims rights legislation: An assessment of its impact on criminal justice practitioners and victims. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Victim Witness Project.Google Scholar
  70. Hills, A. M., & Thomson, D. M. (1999). Should victim impact influence sentence? Understanding the community’s justice reasoning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199923)17:5<661::AID-BSL369>3.0.CO;2-NCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Joh, E. E. (2000). Narrating the pain: The problem with victim impact statements. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 10, 17–37.Google Scholar
  72. Johnson, S., Thorpe, K., Prichard, K., Phillips, D., Moore, A., et al. (2016). Public attitudes toward victim impact statements in capital cases: Individual differences and the willingness to hear the victim’s perspective. Atlanta, GA, March: Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.Google Scholar
  73. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 415–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034463 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Jones, M. B., & Weiner, R. L. (2011). Effects of mortality salience in capital punishment sentencing decisions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.568852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Judges, D. P. P. (1999). Scared to death: Capital punishment as authoritarian terror management. University of California Davis Law Review, 33, 155–249.Google Scholar
  76. Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and non-evidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 25–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.740 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Kennedy, C. M. (2008). Victim impact videos: The new wave of evidence in capital sentencing hearings. Quinnipiac Law Review, 26, 1069–1105.Google Scholar
  81. Kerwin, J., & Schaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294202002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kilpatrick, D. G., & Otto, R. K. (1987). Constitutionally guaranteed participation in criminal justice proceedings for victims: Potential effects of psychological functioning. Wayne State Law Review, 34, 7–28. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr34&id=17 Google Scholar
  83. Kirchmeier, J. L. (2008). Our existential death penalty: Judges, jurors, and terror management. Law and Psychology Review, 32, 55–107.Google Scholar
  84. Kyle, J., Twist, S. J., & Higgins, S. (2005). On the wings of their angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, Nila Lyn Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9, 581–611. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lewclr9&g_sent=1&id=601 Google Scholar
  85. Lens, K. M. E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2013) Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a Victim Impact Statement. European Journal of Criminology 10 (4), 479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lens, K. M. E., van Doorn, J., Lahlah, E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2016). Observer’s reactions to victim impact statements: A preliminary study into the affective and cognitive responses. International Review of Victimology, 22(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758015610851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Levy, J. H. (1993). Limiting victim impact evidence and argument after Payne v. Tennessee. Stanford Law Review, 45, 1027–1060. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S., 586 (1978).Google Scholar
  89. 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
  90. Logan, W. A. (2000). Opining on death: Witness sentence recommendations in capital trials. Boston College Law Review, 41, 517–547.Google Scholar
  91. Logan, W. A. (2005). Victims, survivors and the decisions to seek and impose death. William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 235. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=715021.
  92. Logan, W. A. (2006). Victim impact evidence in federal capital trials. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(5), 05. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2006.19.1.05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. London, K., & Nightingale, N. N. The impact of inadmissible evidence on jury deliberations. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, S.C, March 1996.Google Scholar
  94. London, K., & Nuñez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2012). Looking across the empathic divide: Radicalized decision making on the capital jury. Michigan State Law Review, 2011, 573–607.Google Scholar
  97. Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. McCoy, M. L., Nuñez, N., & Dammeyer, M. M. (1999). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ reasoning skills. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022348229558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. McGowan, M. G., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.3.357.65763 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Minot, D. (2012). Silenced stories: How victim impact evidence in capital trials prevents the jury from hearing the constitutionally required story of the defendant. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 227–251.Google Scholar
  101. Mitchell, K., Myers, B., & Broszkiewicz, N. (2016). Good or essential? The effects of victim characteristics and family significance on sentencing judgments and perceptions of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23, 651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mosteller, R. P. (2003). Symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom: Victim impact evidence: Hard to find the real rules. Cornell Law Review, 88, 543–554.Google Scholar
  103. Mulholland, C. L. (1995). Sentencing criminals. Missouri Law Review, 60, 731–748.Google Scholar
  104. 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(3/4), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v29n03_05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Myers, B., Godwin, D., Latter, R., & Winstanley, S. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22(2), 39–55.Google Scholar
  106. Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2393–2412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Myers, B., Nuñez, N., Mitchell, K., Kehn, A., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2017). The heterogeneity of victim impact statements: A content analysis of capital trial penalty transcripts. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  109. Myers, B., Roop, A., Kalnen, D., & Kehn, A. (2013). Victim impact statements and crime heinousness: a test of the saturation hypothesis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.614244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Myers, B., Weidemann, E., & Pearce, G. (2006). Psychology weighs in on the debate surrounding victim impact statements and capital sentencing: Are emotional jurors really irrational? Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2006.19.1.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2003). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419–456. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.377521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. (2012). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97(2), 1–44.Google Scholar
  113. Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. (1973). A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 90(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9712562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. New Jersey v. Muhummad.145 N.J. 23, 54 [678 A. 2d 164, 180] (N.J. 1996).Google Scholar
  115. Nuñez, N, Egan-Wright, D., Kehn, A., & Myers, B. Impact of different methods of victims impact statement delivery at capital trials: Emotionality of statements and its impact on sentencing decisions. Talk presented at the 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law, Miami, FL, March 2011.Google Scholar
  116. Nuñez, N., Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K., & Myers, B. (2016). The impact of emotions on juror judgments and decision-making. In B. H. Bornstein & M. Miller (Eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law (Vol. 2, pp. 346–385).Google Scholar
  117. Nuñez, N., Myers, B., Wilkowski, B. M., & Schweitzer, K. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(6), 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Nuñez, N., Schweitzer, K., Chai, C. A., & Myers, B. (2015). Negative emotions felt during trial: The effect of fear, anger, and sadness on juror decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ogul, M. (2000). Capital cases: Dealing with victim impact evidence (part 1). Champions, 24, 43–47.Google Scholar
  120. Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact statements on capital decision making. Criminology, 49(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Payne v. Tennessee. 501 U.S. 808. 1991.Google Scholar
  123. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  124. People v. Kelly, 171 P.3d 548, (Cal. 2007).Google Scholar
  125. Phillips, A. K. (1998). 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
  126. Platania, J., & Berman, G. (2006). The moderating effect of judge’s instructions on victim impact testimony in capital cases. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(2), 84–101.Google Scholar
  127. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime. (1982). Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  128. Roberts, J. V. (2009). Listening to the crime victim: Evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. Crime and Justice, 38, 347–403. https://doi.org/10.1086/599203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Rose, M. R., Nadler, J., & Clark, J. (2006). Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of crime victims. Law Human Behavior, 30, 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9030-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Salazar v. State, 90 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).Google Scholar
  131. Sanderford, D. (2012). Victim impact evidence, state by state. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legal-issues-states-allow-victim-impact-statements.
  132. Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (2008). Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(5), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Schroeder, E. A. (2010). Comment: Sounds of prejudice: Background music during victim impact statements. Kansas Law Review, 58, 473–505.Google Scholar
  134. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2017). Victim impact statements: How victim social class affects juror decision-making. Violence and Victims, Online First., 32, 521. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Seelye, K. Q. (2015, March 30). Prosecution in Boston Marathon trial closes with raw details of killings. The New York Times, A-16.Google Scholar
  137. Shanker, N. (1999). Getting a grip on Payne and restricting the influence of victim impact statements in capital sentencing: The Timothy McVeigh Case and various state approaches compared. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 26, 711–740.Google Scholar
  138. Shaunessy, J. M. (1992). Booth v. Maryland, insights into the contemporary challenges to judging. Washington & Lee Law Review, 49, 249–291.Google Scholar
  139. South Carolina v. Gathers. 490 U.S. 805. 1989.Google Scholar
  140. Sullivan, B. E. (1998). Harnessing Payne: Controlling the admission of victim impact statements to safeguard capital sentencing hearings from passion and prejudice. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 25, 601–639.Google Scholar
  141. Sundby, S. E. (2003). Inside and outside the courtroom: The capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Cornell Law Review, 88, 343–381. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.358521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. Tsoudis, O., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1998). How bad was it? The effects of victim and perpetrator emotion on responses to criminal court vignettes. Social Forces, 77(2), 695–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Roberts, J. V. (2005). Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes toward capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166, 192-93 (D. Mass. 2004).Google Scholar
  147. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).Google Scholar
  148. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.13072/midss.438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Weidemann, E. J. (2008). Victim impact statements: The role of expectations in juror judgments. Wilmington, NC: Unpublished Master’s Thesis.Google Scholar
  151. Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., & Clark, J. W. (2014). Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Wiener, R. L., Bornstein, B. H., & Voss, A. (2006). Emotion and the law: A framework for inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9025-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Williham v. State, 947 P.2d 1074, 1085-1086 (Okla Crim. App. 1997).Google Scholar
  155. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wolff, K. T., & Miller, M. K. (2009). Victim and execution impact statements: What judges know about case and psychological research. Judicature, 92, 148–157.Google Scholar
  157. Younglove, J. A., Nelligan, P. J., & Reisner, R. L. (2009). Victim character evidence in death penalty cases: How many songs is too many? Criminal Justice Review, 34, 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809338559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Zant v. Stevens. (1983). 462 U.S. In 862.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations