Skip to main content

Victim Input at Sentencing

  • 933 Accesses

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, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_328
  • Chapter length: 10 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   4,350.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-5690-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   5,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Recommended Reading and References

  • Ashworth A (2002) Restorative rights and restorative justice. Br J Criminol 42:578–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes S (2009) Victims, “closure”, and the sociology of emotion. Law Contemp Probl 72(2):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloof D, Cassell P, Twist S (2010) Victims in criminal procedure. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell PG (2009) In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State J Crim Law 6:611–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell PG, Erez E (2011) Victim impact statements and ancillary harm: the American perspective. Can Crim Law Rev 15(2):150–204

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):481–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis R, Smith B (1994) Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction: an unfulfilled promise? J Crim Justice 22:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Dichter ME, Cerulli C, Kothari CL, Barg FK, Rhodes KV (2011) Engaging with criminal prosecution: the victim’s perspective. Women Crim Justice 21(1):21–37

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):129–151

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez E (1994) Victim participation in sentencing: and the debate goes on. Int Rev Victimol 3:17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Department

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez E, Rogers L (1999) Victim impact statements and sentencing outcomes and processes. Br J Criminol 39:216–239

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez E, Tontodonato P (1992) Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Q 9:393–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez E, Kilchling M, Wemmers J (eds) (2011a) Therapeutic jurisprudence and victim participation in justice: international perspectives. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 15–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes SH (2011) The effects of victim-related contextual factors on the criminal justice system. Crime Delinq 57(2):298–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellerstein D (1989) Victim impact statement: reform or reprisal? Am Crim Law Rev 27:391–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman S (2011) Parallel justice for victims of crime. National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillenbrand S, Smith B (1989) Victim rights legislation: an assessment of its impact on criminal justice practitioners and victims. American Bar Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime (1982) Final report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts JV, Manikis M (2010) Victim impact statements at sentencing: exploring the relevance of ancillary harm. Can Crim Law Rev 15(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang H (2002) Repair or revenge: victims and restorative justice. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobolowsky PM et al (2010) Crime victim rights and remedies, 2nd edn. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Walklate S (2007) Handbook on victims and victimology. Willan, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemmers J (1996) Victims in the criminal justice system. Kugler, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Zappala S (2010) The rights of victims v. the rights of the accused. J Int Crim Justice 8(1):137–164

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edna Erez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Erez, E., Roberts, J.V. (2014). Victim Input at Sentencing. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_328

Download citation