VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

Effects of Victim Impact Statements on Sentencing Outcomes

Opinder Singh Kahlon
j0476078
Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Law Enforcement Studies, Justice Institute of British
Columbia

Author Note
This paper is completed for LAWS 4003: Research Project, instructed by Dr. John
Winterdyk and graded by Bettina Williams. This paper is due on November 14, 2024

1

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

2

Abstract
The research paper examines the effects of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) in influencing
sentencing decisions in the Canadian legal system, focusing on both punitive and restorative
justice viewpoints. The research question focuses on how VIS influences court decisions and
whether they strike a balance between victims' emotional needs and legal fairness. The study
conducts a literature analysis that includes empirical studies, case laws, and court surveys. It
also identifies policy gaps and inconsistencies that have occurred following legislative
modifications to the Criminal Code in 2015. Key findings show that VIS have little impact
on sentencing outcomes in majority of cases as judges see them providing expressive
function rather than instrumental to legal proceedings. Even though, these statements
increases victim empowerment by offering emotional closure and encouraging restorative
justice, they also increase the risk of emotional prejudice and sentencing inequalities where
several impact statements are provided. Further, the literature provides that VIS are more
commonly submitted in serious crimes as compared to minor crimes, therefore questioning
their importance to legal proceedings. Finally, it is recommended to uniformly incorporate
VIS in court proceedings which can be done by resorting to longitudinal research, increased
victim education, and collaboration between legislators and legal professionals. The research
recommend that combining emotional aspect with judicial impartiality can improve victim
participation and sentencing equity.
Keywords: victim impact statement, sentence outcomes, judicial fairness, Canadian
legal system, victims

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING
Table of Contents
Introduction/Background……………………………………………....................... …. 5
Research Question……………………………………………………..…. 6
Problem Statement & Purpose………………………………………….… 6
Worldview………………………………………………………… .... ….… 7
Search Methodology…………………………………………………… ................... … 8
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria………………………………………..…. 9
Assessment of Sources……………………………………… .................... ..…. 9
Literature Review…………………………………………………….…................. … 11
Usage Victim Impact Statements in Sentencing ……………….…..……..…. 11
Emotional and Psychological Impact on Victims …………… ........................... 12
Legislative and Policy Implications …………………………………….….. 14
Judicial Perception of VIS ……………………………………… .............. … 14
Instrumental and Expressive Function of VIS……………………… ... ……. 14
Findings………………………………………………………………..… ............ … 16
Limited impact on sentencing outcomes………………………….………… 16
Variability according to Crime Type…………………………………… ....... 17
Judicial Attitudes about VIS ……………………………………………..… 17
Legal Practitioner’s Perspective on VIS…………………………………...... 19
Strengths & Weakness of the Research……………………………………... 19
Discussion…………………………………………………….……...............……….. 20
Recommendations………………………………………… ................... ……….…… 25
Conclusion……………………………………………..…… ............ ……… ....…… 26
References…………………………………………...... …… ............. ……………… 29

3

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

4

Effects of Victim Impact Statements on Sentencing Outcomes
Victim Impact Statements (VIS) have become an integral part of the Canadian
criminal justice system since its adoption in 1988. These statements allow victims to
explain the personal impact of a crime, including emotional, psychological, and financial
harm, during sentence hearings (Dufour et al., 2023). Traditionally, criminal sentencing has
been based on legal considerations such as the nature of the offense and the offender's
responsibility (Nicol, 2020). However, by introduction of VIS in sentence hearings victims'
words are heard directly in court.
The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR) was amended in 2015, especially
section 722 of the Criminal Code, which increased VIS's role by granting victims the right to
participate more inclusive in court proceedings and to provide information on the physical,
emotional, and financial consequences of the crime. These changes were intended to
highlight victims' voices and develop a victim-centered approach to the court system.
However, they expressed concerns about ensuring fairness and consistency in punishment,
as courts must reconcile the victim's emotional narrative with legal proportionality principles
(Manikis, 2015). Miller (2015) views this participatory technique as the most consequential
victim-centered reform, aiming to increase crime victim participation in court proceedings.
VIS aims to address a number of fundamental objectives. They give victims a way to
express their pain, potentially assisting their emotional healing and sense of closure.
Simultaneously, these statements increase judicial transparency by providing courts and
offenders with insight into victims' lived experiences. Moreover, VIS aims to enhance public
trust in the justice system by ensuring that the victim's perspective are not disregarded (Roberts
& Edgar, 2006). However, the function and influence of VIS on sentencing results have sparked
intense debate According to some legal scholars and practitioners, VIS empowers victims and
aids judges in imposing sentences that more accurately reflect the pain the offense has caused

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

5

(Smith, 2012). Proponents argue that VIS helps to promote restorative justice by recognizing
the personal effect of the crime and encouraging offender accountability (Miller, 2015).
Critics are concerned that VIS introduces emotional bias into the sentencing process, which
could damage fairness and consistency. There is also the possibility of disproportionate
punishment, especially in cases involving many or extremely passionate statements, since
judges may feel compelled to apply stronger punishments (Dufour et al., 2023).
The divisive nature of VIS arises from demands of two competing goals which are to
increase victim participation and guarantee judicial impartiality. While VIS aims to represent
the personal cost of a crime, judges must ensure that their decisions are law-based, taking into
account considerations like as proportionality, precedent, and the offender's circumstances.
This requires research regarding their impact on sentencing outcomes and fairness.
Research Question
How Victim Impact Statements affects sentencing decisions in Canada and whether
using it results in fairer or more inconsistent outcomes?
Sub-questions include: What is the role of Victim Impact Statements in the
sentence process for judges? How do judges, victims, and legal practitioners assess the
influence of VIS on the equity and efficacy of sentencing?
Problem Statement and Purpose
The key issue in this paper is to gain knowledge on the effect of VIS on sentencing
outcomes in Canada. Although VIS offers an avenue for victims to be in a position to
participate actively in the justice process, literature does not make it clear up to what extent
they will influence judicial decisions. Some studies indicate that VIS has little or no effect
on sentencing results since judges are mostly guided by legal considerations and sentencing

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

6

guidelines. Others argue that VIS results in longer or more severe sentences, especially in
cases involving a high level of emotion or for serious crimes such as violent ones. At the
very least, this difference raises unsettling questions about whether VIS have contributed to
more equitable sentencing decisions or if they are importing unwarranted biases into the
criminal justice system. The following study looks at the dual capacity of VIS serving within
the Canadian Criminal Justice System.
This research is studying the practical effect of VIS on judicial decision-making and
sentence outcome. It also examines the emotional and psychological benefits that VIS
provides for victims, in terms of punishment. In this respect, the broader understanding of the
implications of VIS may help assess whether these statements strike the right balance
between victim empowerment and judicial impartiality.
Worldview
This research design is more associated with the post-positivism world view. A
postpositivist identifies reality, though one which can't be conceptualized and observed in a
completely objective way, as Creswell and Creswell (2018) established. It researches
empirical data, namely judicial verdicts and case files, to test what is the function of VIS in
sentencing. It observes trends and results of VIS on sentencing. The post-positivism
approach has the tendency to evaluate theories and hypotheses based on empirical data,
allowing for consideration of preconceived notions and the influence of values on the
researcher's perspective.
The current study has a two-fold approach toward the impacts of Victim Impact
Statements, both at the level of sentencing outcome and in victim rehabilitation within the
Canadian criminal justice system. The results indicate that VIS provides psychological
relief and an avenue for active victim participation, which are also important components of

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

7

procedural justice. VIS do not always serve the principles of proportionality and equity
in sentencing, especially in cases of multiple or highly emotional statements.
Search Methodology
This research involved an evaluation of literature. First, online search was performed
using the JIBC library's EBSCO system and its databases, as well as Google Scholar. Then,
scholarly publications were picked according to their relevancy to the study issue. Newspaper
stories, magazines, and periodicals were excluded from the review. Initially, the scope was set to
articles concerning VIS in Canada, but to narrow down the scope of the research search, the
focus shifted on the role of VIS in sentencing outcomes. The selected articles provided empirical
evidence on VIS and their influence on sentencing outcomes in Canada.

The initial literature review was performed via the JIBC library. The keyword used
was "Victim Impact Statements." There were 433,700 hits. The parameters were then
refined by an evaluation of peer-reviewed literature. This received 351,909 hits. Also, the
criteria were further refined by filtering to modify the year range to 2000-2024 and adding
the keyword "sentencing or outcome" to the advanced search. This resulted a total of 1,238
hits. A number of articles were evaluated and/or selected by title, after which the filter
"Canada" was applied, yielding 88 results (see Table 1).

Table 1
Search Results of the Literature Search using JIBC Library

Filters

# of Hits

Victim Impact Statements

433,700 hits

Peer-reviewed literature

351,909 hits

Year range set to 2000-2024 and keyword refined

1,238 hits

to “sentencing or outcomes”

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

8

Canada

88 results

A search was also performed on Google Scholar with the keywords “victim impact
statements,” “sentencing outcome,” and “Canada.” There were 20,000 results. After that, filters
were applied by date, from 2000 to 2024, resulting in 19,800 results. The databases linked to
the chosen articles from all searches included EBSCO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, APA Psych
Info, and Sage Journals. For this research more than 20 items were chosen for review from
these searches. Next, abstracts were evaluated for relevance of the research question, while also
taking into account the established inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table 2
Search Results from Google Scholar
Filters
"victim impact statements," "sentencing outcome,"

# Hits
20,000

and “Canada.”
Filtered by date (2000-2024)

19,800 results

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Table 3 describes the criteria for inclusion and exclusion in the study. This
includes Canadian criminal cases from 2000 to 2024 which include submitted victim
impact statements that involve Canadian courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and
victims. The research examines offenses with different sentence decisions and guarantees
that case data and victim impact statements are accessible to the public. It excludes noncriminal cases (including civil or family law), legal practitioners outside Canada, cases
and articles before 2000, decisions resulting from plea agreements, non-Canadian
jurisdictions, and any cases with incomplete or inaccessible records.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

9

Table 3
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Literature Search
Criteria
Legal Cases

Inclusion
Criminal cases in Canada with
submitted VIS

Exclusion
Non-criminal cases (e.g., civil, family
law)

Participants

Canadian judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, victims

Legal professionals outside Canada,
Public

Time Frame
Sentencing
Types

2000 - 2024
Offenses with variable sentencing
outcomes

Before 2000
Sentences determined by plea
bargains with

Geographic
Scope
Data
Availability

Canada

Non-Canadian jurisdictions

Cases with publicly available VIS
and sentencing records

Incomplete or inaccessible case
records

These articles received consideration for thorough examination because of their
varied viewpoints and detailed analysis of Victim Impact Statements in Canadian sentencing.
Articles offered important insights on the impact of VIS on sentencing outcomes, considering
elements such as crime severity, judges and victim views about role of VIS in legal
proceedings. Several studies investigate the emotional and psychological effects of VIS on
victims and their significance in trials, providing both quantitative data and qualitative
insights. Others analyze legislative changes, like the Victims Bill of Rights Act that reflect on
the transition towards punitive punishment and its consequence. Literature also indicate the
significance of VIS in mitigating harm and directing proportional sentencing.
This research includes both quantitative and qualitative literature to gain a thorough
knowledge of the function of VIS in sentencing decisions. The empirical research which
provided quantitative data on sentencing results are preferred in order to gain knowledge
about the measurable effects of VIS. Additionally, qualitative research articles provided
insights into the emotional and psychological effects of VIS on victims, judges, and other
legal professionals, which are essential for understanding the larger implications of VIS in

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

10

judicial contexts. This balanced approach resulted in a thorough examination of VIS's impact
on Canadian sentencing results.
Assessment of Sources
The selection process further narrowed the list to articles that matched the criteria of
research and scope. This, within itself, narrowed the search to the selection of the articles that
provided information on aspects of the research question. This was done through focusing on
literature that addresses the role of victim impact statement on sentencing outcomes in
Canada. The process required using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This was through
checking the title of the articles to see if they were relevant. Once the title had been cleared
to meet the requirement, then the abstract and conclusion were checked. The article was then
to be dismissed or critically appraised, using its relevance to the scope of the study.
Following the selection of articles to its final number, it was necessary to assess the
reliability and validity, in addition to common themes contained therein. Each component of
the study was matched with the question and scope of the research: study location,
participant sample, results, limitations, and gaps in the literature. Not all aspects of the
research question are represented in the literature. Of course, this can be comprehended
based on the complexity of the issue. As such, some articles were selected due to their
specific strengths, providing rich information related to at least one subtopic. After this
extensive search 15 articles were identified to provide the basis for this critical appraisal.
Literature Review
After analysing and reviewing the literature relating to the research question, several
themes emerge, which will be discussed as follows:
Usage and Effectiveness of VIS in Sentencing
The studies regularly examine the perceived utility of VIS in the legal process while
questioning their effectiveness. This lack of clarity shows that whereas VIS may fulfill a

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

11

procedural role, their true influence on sentencing is unclear, highlighting the necessity for
additional research on their effectiveness beyond mere courtroom participation. Dufour et
al. (2023) discovered that although victim impact statements are more commonly associated
with severe cases, they do not have a significant influence on sentencing when the type of
crime is accounted for. Oral victim impact statements and the number of statements often
lead to lengthier sentences, showing that both the format and quantity of statements may
influence judicial decisions, despite the inconsistent impact of victim impact statements on
sentencing outcomes. Roberts and Edgar (2006) also observe that judges consider VIS
beneficial for amplifying victims' voices, however, they highlight their limited usage,
particularly in less severe cases. Cole (2003) observes that victim impact statements have a
minimal effect on the severity of sentencing, particularly where the defendant enters a guilty
plea. Both Crown counsel and victims recognize the substantial emotional impact of VIS;
however, this emotional significance does not result in apparent changes to sentencing
outcomes.
Bateman and Dalby (2010) presents a viewpoint from legal professionals, showing
that both Crown prosecutors and defense attorneys concur that Victim Impact Statements
have limited effect on the severity of sentencing. In contrast, Roberts & Edgar (2010)
contend that using VIS as evidence enables the court to determine a sentence that is more
accurate than the harm the offense causes. Thus, VIS can support the rehabilitation process
by providing victims with a voice, as they rarely influence the final sentencing outcome.
Emotional and Psychological Impact on Victims
Despite having little influence on sentence choices, Victim Impact Statements (VIS)
play a vital rehabilitative role for victims. Many victims report feeling relieved after making a
statement because it allows them to express their feelings and share their experiences (Cole
2003). In some cases, creating and delivering a VIS creates a sense of closure, allowing

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

12

victims to process their trauma and regain control.
Victims generally find the VIS process empowering because it allows them to
communicate directly with the court and the perpetrator. This right to be heard is especially
crucial in a legal system that historically prioritized the offender's actions over the victim's
experiences (Smith, 2012). For some victims, the VIS is the only time during the trial
process that their sorrow is legally acknowledged, which can help with emotional healing.
Furthermore, VIS improves victim satisfaction with their involvement in legal proceedings
victims often report pleasant experiences while making a statement in court (Bottoms &
Roberts, 2012).
However, not all victims enjoy the benefits of VIS. Some people find the procedure retraumatizing, especially if they believe their statements are ignored or if they are crossexamined at sentencing. In these circumstances, the anticipated emotional release may instead
result in dissatisfaction and disappointment (Roberts & Manikis, 2010). Janzen
(2020) highlights that the emotional effort of putting together a VIS, along with uncertainty
regarding its impact on punishment, can leave victims feeling overwhelmed or disillusioned.

The emotional impact of VIS is well described in the literature. According to Dufour
et al. (2023), VIS have significant emotional importance, especially when delivered orally,
and are increasingly employed in situations involving serious offenses. The abovementioned research provides that VIS may not influence sentence results, but they have a
significant emotional impact on both the court and the victim, especially when multiple
statements are delivered. Cole (2003) contends that VIS provide a means of release for
victims, regardless of their little influence on sentence judgments.
VIS can also be used as a weapon to advocate for heavier punishments which might be
harmful because it ignores victims' emotional needs (Janzen, 2020). In contrast, Ruparelia
(2012) contends that the public recognition that comes from delivering a VIS in court can

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

13

improve victim satisfaction and provide therapeutic benefits. These findings show the
importance of carefully considering the emotional effects of VIS. It is clear that such
statements empower victims by giving them a platform to express their stories, but their
usage can also impose psychological costs that contradict their intended purpose. Despite
the aforementioned limitations, the symbolic value of VIS remains high. They help victims
to express the personal effect of the incident in court. Even if the sentence is unaffected, the
ability to express oneself can provide closure and healing, especially for victims of violent
crime.
Legislative and Policy Implications
The legislative framework governing VIS has progressed, notably with the enactment
of the 2015 Victims Bill of Rights Act. Janzen (2020) attacks this approach for potentially
increasing punitive sentencing trends, emphasizing a transition towards harsher sentences
driven by Victim Impact Statements. This issue highlights the complex relationship between
legislative amendments and the implementing VIS, prompting worries regarding the
potential adverse effects of policies that advocate for more severe penalties under the
justification of victim support.
Judicial Perception of VIS
Roberts and Edgar (2006) examine judicial perspectives of VIS, revealing that judges
typically appreciate victim input, particularly in violent crime cases; however, VIS remains
underutilized in court proceedings. Judges have raised concerns that Victim Impact
Statements may introduce unnecessary emotional content, potentially influencing the legal
process. Janzen (2020) contributes to this argument by examining how VIS, used as
evidence of harm, may strengthen a punitive sentencing approach. This method may lead
judges to impose more severe sentences, although that Victim Impact Statements give
victims a voice rather than to promote stricter penalties.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

14

Instrumental and Expressive Function of VIS
Victim Impact Statements can impact sentencing results in two ways: expressive and
instrumental. The expressive function focuses on describing the emotional impact of the
crime to the court, the offender, and the general public, and it frequently provides victims
with therapeutic benefits. This allows victims to reclaim a sense of control and actively
participate in the legal system, addressing secondary victimization by ensuring their voice is
heard (Manikis, 2015). However, because the VIS is intended to communicate emotion
rather than give factual information, it has no direct bearing on the character or harshness of
the sentencing. Conversely, the instrumental function views the VIS as critical evidence to
determine adequate sentence. It assists the court to assess the harm caused, aligning with
perspectives of retribution and proportionality, and can impact the sentence as either an
aggravating or mitigating element. Furthermore, the instrumental function promotes
restorative goals by facilitating restitution or directing protective conditions, such as
probation sentences (Markin, 2017).
In the case of R. v. Gabriel 1999, para. 19, Justice Hill explained the four goals of
the victim impact statements are: to show that the punishment was fair; to help the victim
make up for the harm done; to boost the victim's trust and satisfaction in the justice system;
and to restore the victim's identity in the proceedings. This provided for the crucial
importance of clearly understanding the VIS's role in managing expectations and ensuring
its proper application during sentencing. Thus, the dual purpose of VISs which are
therapeutic expression and factual evidence influences sentencing by addressing both the
emotional and legal aspects of justice.
The reviewed articles present a variety of ideas and recommendations for the usage
of VIS. Some studies support the use of VIS as a tool for victim participation and expression,
while others raise serious concerns about their impact on sentencing outcomes and the

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

15

likelihood of discrimination. Furthermore, arguments exist over the role of VIS in legal
procedures, namely whether they should promote involvement of victims or strictly stick to
principles of fairness and proportionality in sentencing. Despite a considerable literature
present on the topic, several gaps exist. There is a considerable lack of empirical data on
the effect of victim impact statements from various crime categories on sentence outcomes.
Findings
This section presents key findings from the literature review, focusing on critical
areas such as the limited impact of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) on sentencing outcomes,
variation in the use of VIS based on crime type, the therapeutic role VIS play for victims,
judges' attitudes toward these statements, punitive and restorative approach. The findings
show relationship between the intended goal of VIS and how it influences sentencing
practices in Canadian courts.
Mixed Findings on the Role and Influence of VIS
Although studies acknowledge the emotional and expressive value of VIS, their
actual impact on punishment is inconsistent. Dufour et al. (2023) discovered that VIS are
more commonly utilized in serious situations, although the nature of crime still influences
sentencing outcomes. Additionally, oral VIS and repeated statements can result in longer
sentences, implying that the format and quantity of VIS may affect judicial decisions in some
cases, yet the total effect remains minimal. Roberts and Edgar (2006) discovered that, while
VIS can magnify victims' voices, they are underused in less severe cases. One possible
explanation for the little impact is that Canadian courts follow the idea of proportionality in
sentence. Judges consider a variety of legal elements, including the seriousness of the crime,
prior criminal record, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances, which are more important
than subjective victim experiences. This commitment to legal norms means that emotions
portrayed in VIS do not outweigh the objective considerations considered in sentencing

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

16

(Roberts & Manikis, 2011).
Further research focuses the symbolic relevance of VIS over their practical
application. For example, Cole (2003) discovered that VIS had no effect on sentencing
severity, particularly when the defendant submitted a guilty plea. Also, legal professionals,
including crown prosecutors and defense counsel, typically agree that VIS has no influence
on sentencing (Bateman & Dalby, 2010). Nevertheless, Roberts and Edgar (2010) suggests
that VIS can help with more accurate sentencing by providing a clearer understanding of the
harm produced by the offense. While VIS are unlikely to dramatically impact sentencing
decisions, they do have a rehabilitative goal by making victims feel heard and
acknowledged. This therapeutic role contributes value to the judicial process, even if it does
not result in changes in sentencing severity.
Although VIS may give another layer of knowledge, its practical impact on results is
not substantial. For example, even in high-profile cases when victims provide emotional
testimony, sentence patterns follow the precedent established by case laws based on
principle of stare decisis (to stand by what has been decided) which implies that a legal
principle or rule that was established in a previous case should be followed to in a
subsequent case if the facts and legal issues of the subsequent case are sufficiently similar to
those of the previous case (Skolnik, 2021). Thus, while VIS help victims feel heard, they
rarely alter the intended course of justice.
Variability According to Crime Type
The impact of VIS on sentencing varies immensely depending on the type of crime.
According to studies, VIS are more common in cases involving serious crimes including
homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence than in property or minor crimes (Dufour et
al., 2023). Similarly, judges also state that relevance of VIS varies by case, with
41% Manitoba judges responding that they are most useful in serious crimes, particularly

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

17

violent offenses, and insignificant in lesser cases where their usage could affect resources and
dilute their impact (Roberts & Edgar, 2006).
This distinction can be related to the severity of emotional and psychological suffering
caused by violent crimes, which encourages victims to offer statements. In serious cases, such
as murder or aggravated assault, victims or their families feel compelled to express the
significant impact the incident has had on their life. VIS in many situations is more thorough
and emotionally intense, providing the tragedy, grief, and long-term impacts (Janzen, 2021).
Judges may acknowledge the significance of these statements, but they must also highlight that
sentence judgments must be proportional and fair.

On the other hand, VIS are used fewer in property crimes and nonviolent offenses
(Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Victims of theft or vandalism, for example, may not
feel compelled to make a statement because the loss they suffered was pecuniary rather than
emotional. When VIS are submitted in such situations, they tend to focus on financial loss
or inconvenience rather than emotional trauma, which reduces their potential impact on
sentencing decisions (Dufour, 2021).
This difference raises serious concerns about the accessibility and equity of VIS for
various sorts of offenders. If VIS are only utilized in extreme situations, victims of small
crimes may feel cornered from the court system, undercutting the purpose of victim
participation. Furthermore, the absence of VIS in minor cases may indicate to judges that
the impact on victims is minor, even if the suffering suffered is large in non-material terms.
Judicial Attitudes About VIS
Judges usually see VIS as an important part of the sentencing process, although some
express concern about its potential to induce emotional bias. In interviews with judges,
Roberts and Edgar (2006) discovered that most judges valued the information VIS provided
into the personal consequences of crime. They did, however, underline the importance of

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

18

striking a balance between empathy for victims and the principles of fairness
and proportionality.
Judges consider VIS to be valuable and a distinct source of information relevant to
punishment. The survey results show that, across three jurisdictions, half of the judges found
victim impact statements useful in all or most cases, with only 19% finding them useful in
only a few cases, demonstrating that judges generally see these statements as valuable,
despite some opposing views (Roberts & Edgar, 2006). Also, 47% of judges in three
jurisdictions found that victim impact statements frequently or occasionally provided
relevant information for sentencing that was not available from the trial or Crown
submissions, reinforcing the judicial view that these statements serve as an important
supplementary resource (Roberts & Edgar, 2006).
Nevertheless, judges are particularly cautious when using multiple VIS in instances
involving several victims. While the inclusion of many testimonials can provide a more
complete picture of the impact, it also raises concerns about the cumulative emotional
influence on the court's decision-making process. Some judges are concerned that the
emotional weight of many VIS may unwittingly lead to harsher penalties, jeopardizing the
impartiality of legal proceedings (Smith, 2012).
In certain circumstances, judges are frustrated when VIS use inflammatory language or
offer sentencing recommendations because such information is outside the original objective of
the comments. In one such case the Court highlighted that, while judges occasionally come
across victim impact statements containing inappropriate information, they are cautious in
ensuring that such content does not affect their rulings. This shows the judiciary's effort to
maintain impartiality and equitable sentencing methods, even when emotionally charged
statements are made. Judges must then tread carefully in these cases to ensure that the
offender's rights are upheld while simultaneously appreciating the victim's

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

19

right to express their emotions (R. v. Nomm, 2009, para. 14). The judicial balancing task of
accepting victim input while maintaining the fairness of the trial highlights the difficulties of
incorporating VIS into the sentencing process.
Legal Practitioner’s Perspective on VIS
Moving on to the viewpoints of legal counsel on usage of VIS in court proceedings.
Existing research found out that both crown and defence counsel agreed on the overall
effect of a Victim Impact Statement on the severity of the sentence. 50 percent of
participants believed that a VIS would enhance the severity of a sentence, 27 percent
thought it would diminish sentence severity, while the remaining participants perceived no
effect (Bateman & Dalby, 2010).
The vast majority (77%) of legal counsel interviewed say VIS should be permitted,
while support is divided between Crown and defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are often
skeptical of VIS, concerned about potential consequences for the offender's rights and
asking whether the procedure favors the individual over society as the victim. It is pointed
that crown counsel are more likely to view VIS positively, particularly in terms of offering
victims with closure and promoting their engagement in the legal system (Bateman & Dalby,
2010). This highlights an ongoing dispute about whether VIS adequately balances victim
representation with a fair focus on the offender.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Research
The research project used a literature review based on empirical studies, judicial
decisions, and judges' questionnaires from the existing literature. This offers a different
perspective on the emotional and legal aspects of the VIS. The focus on emotional and legal
perspectives gave great insights into VIS, focusing not on sentencing outcomes but rather on the
psychological gain they offer to the victim. In addition to this, research identified policy gaps
and inconsistencies indicating how national standards mattered in making the variations

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

20

of VIS application uniform across regions. Case studies and judicial opinions, used in the
research, were a silver lining as the study practically presented insights that can be
remarkably useful for identifying how VIS is used or perceived in reality at the courts of
justice. Moreover, source diversity ranged from academic research to government records
and judges' narratives, balancing both emotional and legal components in providing an
in-depth knowledge of the VIS.
One of the limitations of this study is that it relies on secondary data. The interaction
with victims and judges was minimal. As a result, some of the findings of the study were
indirect since the research relied on the interpretations that were done previously. Another
limitation is that no longitudinal analysis was provided to indicate how long-term the effects
of VIS are on the results of victims and sentences. Also, lack of representations of direct
victim experiences were realized in this study and this limited inclusion reduces the depth of
understanding in victim experiences. This can, in the future studies, be addressed through
interviews or questionnaires with victims to gain more personal and diverse perspectives.
The other issue was in the over-emphasis on sentencing outcomes, which may have
overlooked the overall value of the VIS for victim satisfaction and restorative justice.
Discussion
The discussion provides insights by examination of findings about the role of Victim
Impact Statements in the Canadian legal system. The difficulties of integrating emotional
assistance for victims with the principles of judicial fairness. It also identifies policy gaps
following the 2015 legislative amendments and discusses the punitive and restorative
approach of VIS and implications of VIS for sentencing equity.
Balance Emotional Support and Judicial Fairness
The use of VIS presents a major issue by advocating for victims' emotional demands
along with the impartiality required for judicial fairness. Without a doubt, VIS allows

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

21

participation of victims to express the effect of the crime, giving them attention and
legitimacy in a system that has traditionally prioritized offenders. This is especially helpful
for victims who feel ignored throughout court proceedings. Though the emotional nature of
these statements poses issues for judges, there conscience should follow that sentence
judgments are objective and consistent with legal principles.
While VIS allows victims to express sadness, fury, or suffering, they can also add
emotional biases into the trial. The problem emerges when judges, consciously or
unconsciously, consider the emotional impact of a VIS in their sentencing choices, possibly
leading to harsher penalties. Also, emotional bias is especially detrimental when multiple
VIS are offered, as a collection of statements can elevate the perceived injury, raising the risk
of a disproportionate punishment. This begs the dilemma of how courts should acknowledge
victim participation while maintaining legal neutrality (Manikis, 2015; Roberts & Edgar,
2006).
The balance between these competing interests indicates the need for more specific
procedural standards. Some argue for restricting the length or frequency of VIS to minimize
emotional overload, while others propose educating judges to better manage emotional
content without enabling it to impact sentencing outcomes. Regardless, the courts must
ensure that VIS improves the victim's feeling of justice while maintaining the fairness and
integrity of the legal system.
Policy Gaps: The Impact of 2015 Legislative Changes
The 2015 revisions to Canada's Criminal Code increased the use of VIS, enabling
victims to participate more fully during sentencing. These reforms were made to empower
victims and give them a stronger voice in proceedings. Despite the beneficial aim of the
amendments, major policy gaps persist, resulting in variations in how VIS is applied and
interpreted among jurisdictions. One major concern is the variation in the quality and content

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

22

of VIS. Some victims may be assisted and guided in drafting their statements, but others are
left to go through the process on their own, resulting in inconsistent presentation and
efficacy. In certain circumstances, poorly crafted statements fail to reflect the full scope of
the victim's damage, decreasing their potential impact (Manikis, 2022).
Another issue is a lack of defined processes for judges to evaluate and incorporate
VIS into their decisions. While some jurisdictions provide judges with instruction on how
to use VIS appropriately, others do not, resulting in variances in how these statements are
weighed. As a result, sentencing decisions can vary depending on the presiding judge or
location, undermining the purpose of fairness and uniformity in the legal system.
Furthermore, legislative amendments have not adequately addressed the risk of victim retraumatization. Victims are frequently left with the impression that their statements will
impact sentence, only to be frustrated when the outcome remains same (Smith, 2012). This
might lead to dissatisfaction with the legal system, focusing on the need for open
communication about the function of VIS and its limitations on sentence outcomes.
These policy gaps shows the need for further legislative amendments. By adopting
clear criteria for the production, presentation, and judicial use of VIS, the victims of crime
may feel included and have equitable opportunity to engage meaningfully in the legal
process. Additionally, increased consistency in judicial training would encourage more
uniform sentencing techniques, lowering the possibility of arbitrary outcomes.
Inconsistent Impact of VIS on Sentence Outcomes
The different impact of VIS on sentence outcomes raises questions regarding possible
inequalities. As noted in the findings above, the presence and emotional state of VIS can vary
greatly based on the sort of crime committed, the victim's personal circumstances, and the
resources accessible to them. There may cases involving several victims in which many VIS are
presented, judges in such cases may fail to manage the accumulating emotional weight,

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

23

resulting in biased decision-making and harsher penalties for the offenders (Roberts &
Edgar, 2006). This gap can result in unintentional differences in sentencing. For example,
offenders in high-profile or violent crime cases, where victims are more likely to present
emotionally charged VIS, may get harsher punishments than those in less-publicized
instances involving similar crimes. Such outcomes risk undermining the principle of
proportionality in sentencing, which states that the punishment should be proportionate to the
offense rather than the emotional effect given by victims.
Similarly, the absence of VIS in cases involving marginalized or vulnerable victims,
for example, those with little access to legal resources may result in moderate punishments,
even if the harm is significant. This raises questions regarding equality, as not all victims
have equal access to the legal process. To overcome this issue, courts must create strategies
to ensure that the presence or lack of VIS does not have an undue influence on sentence
decisions.
Manage Multiple VIS and Sentencing Fairness
The judges face significant issues when dealing with various VIS in cases involving
multiple victims. While several statements can provide a more complete picture of the harm
inflicted by the crime, they also place an emotional burden on the court. Therefore, judges
must use caution in these cases to ensure that the overall impact of several VIS does not
distort the sentence process. Some legal scholars suggest that many VIS can cause emotional
inflation, in which the gravity of the act is increased by the volume of statements, potentially
leading to unnecessarily punitive punishments (Janzen, 2021).
Punitive and Restorative Approach to VIS
The conflict between punitive and restorative forms of justice is important in debates
over the use of VIS in sentencing. These two frameworks represent different perspectives
about how victims' voices should affect judicial decisions. The use of VIS is directly related

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

24

to these opposing perspectives: one focused on punishment and retribution and the other on
healing and reconciliation (Manikis, 2015). Each approach has an impact for justice's
purposes, victim roles, and sentencing proportionality.
The punitive model views victim involvement as a means of advocating need of
harsher penalties. This approach represents the view that victims' participation increases
sentencing harshness by stressing the harm done while others argue that the goal of VIS in
this approach is to highlight the leniency of the judicial system and drive courts to render
harsher decisions. Scholars contend that this trend promotes the prosecution, usually at the
price of impartial justice, and serves to politicize victims' rights (Bottoms & Roberts, 2011).
Furthermore, victims can be used as pawns in the politics of law and order, influenced to
build public support for harsher policies (Young, 2001).
This punishing model has met strong opposition. Some claim that when victims are
given participatory rights, they may seek revenge, resulting in disproportionate punishments
that undermine the court system's fairness. This raises issues about judicial impartiality,
since emotional narratives provided by VIS may overpower legal concepts and contribute to
discrepancies in sentence outcomes. Opponents of using victim impact statements (VIS) as
evidence of injury in sentencing contend that the severity of the punishment is determined by
the type and circumstances of the crime, which are adequate to assess the seriousness of the
offense and its potential impact on the victim, thus, within a retribution-based punishment
approach, such statements are unnecessary (Janzen, 2020).
In contrast, the restorative model focuses on VIS's expressive and communicative
functions. The objective of the statement is not to push for heavier sanctions, but rather to
share the effect of the crime and promote understanding between victims and offenders
(Bottoms & Roberts, 2011). Restorative justice promotes dialogue and accountability,
promoting healing rather than punishment. In this approach, VIS are used to express harm,

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

25

provide emotional closure, and rebuild social bonds. The emphasis is on rebuilding
relationships rather than isolating the offender with punitive measures. Despite their
distinctions, these two models are frequently regarded as mutually exclusive, with restorative
justice being incompatible with retributive goals. However, this distinction ignores the
difficulties of many victims' experiences. Victims may request both acknowledgment of
harm and fair sentence that reflects the gravity of the offense (Smith, 2012). Therefore, they
should be combining parts from both models by allowing VIS to influence but not drive
sentencing can provide a more balanced method.
Furthermore, VIS are more than just formal requirements; increased use of it can
transform judicial culture toward a more trauma-informed approach. By addressing the
psychological and long-term costs of crime, VIS promotes empathy within the legal system
and may support non-traditional sentencing techniques such as restorative dialogues or
mediation. This method encourages criminals to accept responsibility while also allowing
victims to find emotional closure. Finally, the problem is to strike a balance between the
necessity for full victim participation and the ideals of fairness and proportionality. Courts
must create procedures to ensure that many VIS improve, not distort, the sentencing
process. This could include giving judges clear guidelines on how to examine and combine
various statements, ensuring that each perspective is heard without jeopardizing the
outcome's fairness.
Recommendations
The recommendations are suggested to address the issues surrounding VIS and to
promote a more equitable and consistent application of VIS throughout Canada. A review of the
current literature show that there is very limited data which is available to study the long-term
effects of VIS upon victims and on sentencing results. Thus, longitudinal research is needed to
know the emotional impact on victims as well as the judicial use of VIS over time

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

26

in order to understand the impact of these statements. The data will be important in
influencing future decisions and ensuring that VIS meets its intended goals without
creating unintended harm.
One of the significant issues in developing national VIS rules is the lack of
consistency among jurisdictions. Also, without defined nationwide rules, how VIS are
produced, presented, and reviewed varies greatly, resulting in sentence inequalities. The
unified national rules would solve these issues and promote impartiality throughout the legal
system. In addition, there is a need of coordinated national effort which would thereby
enhance the consistency and transparency of VIS use, reducing the risk of arbitrary decisions
and increasing trust in the judicial system. Further, sentencing fairness and victim
participation must be improved. For that, judges should be instructed to record how they
considered VIS in their sentence determinations, and independent oversight bodies could
conduct analyses of sentencing decisions to look for potential disparities.
Next, the attention must also be directed toward enhancing public awareness and
victim education. It is necessary to effectively address anticipations among victim’s mind
regarding the influence their statements may exert on sentencing outcomes. This may be done
by directing educational efforts toward disadvantaged groups, thus assuring equal access to
information and resources for all victims, regardless of socioeconomic status. Therefore,
through the implementation of these recommendations, it will help to overcome the problems
related to VIS and allow for more equitable and consistent application of these statements
across Canada.
Conclusion
This research analyzed the role of Victim Impact Statements on sentencing outcomes in
the Canadian criminal justice system. It points out the inconsistencies between emotional
aspects and judicial equity. Additionally, it has established two models influencing the

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

27

application or use of VIS: the punitive model, which focuses on harsher sentencing, and the
restorative model, which promote healing and emotional closure. These two concepts are
absolutely opposite, the research pointed out that many victims want both justice and
healing, which requires to maintain balance between the two views. Moreover, the policies
are made to widen the presence of the VIS in courts through literature, judicial judgments,
and legislative development analysis.
Notably, the key findings identified from the research included the likeliness of
emotional biases injected in sentencing, the difficulties of balancing victim participation with
the need for impartiality in the legal process, and the inconsistent application across
jurisdictions of VIS, especially since the 2015 Criminal Code changes. In this case, mixed
handling by the courts of VIS establishes doubts on sentence equity and re-victimization.
The study also recognized that although VIS have psychological benefits to victims, their
long-term effect on victim recovery is not yet known.
The limitation of this study is that it relies on secondary data, reducing the direct
contact with victims and judges alike. Also, the results of this study have not been able to
capture specific information related to the experiences of victims or the evolving attitude of
legal practitioners. Moreover, longitudinal studies further limit our knowledge of how
much long-term influence VIS has on the victims themselves and on sentencing patterns.
The future research should adequately fill these gaps by incorporating qualitative
interviews with victims, judges, and other relevant legal professionals for subjective
accounts. This would be valuable in investigating the psychological impact of VIS over a
period of time and would examine how they impact sentence determination. Furthermore,
creating national guidelines for VIS will enable lower regional inconsistencies as well as
a more uniform use within Canada as a whole. In short, while VIS offers victims an
opportunity of being heard, their place in the legal system does not supersede the legal

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

28

principles and fairness. Hence, a balanced approach instilled with empathy and impartiality
can help shape VIS into a powerful tool that serves justice, healing, and victim
participation in legal proceedings.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

29

References
Bateman, A.L., & Dalby, J. (2010). Victim impact statements: Alberta lawyers' perspectives.
Alberta Law Review.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236891414_Victim_impact_statements_Alb
erta_lawyers'_perspectives
Bottoms, A. E., & Roberts, J. V. (2011). Hearing the victim adversarial justice, crime
victims and the state. Willan.
Canadian Department of Justice. (2004). Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal
Justice Professionals across Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cjjp/victim/rr05_vic1/sum8-som8/p3.html
Cole, M.A. (2003). Perceptions of the use of victim impact statements in Canada: A survey of
crown counsel in Ontario. [Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa]. University of
Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/8e3e5024-d122-4678-89161c3cf5fbb237/content
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/creswell.pdf
Dufour, G. K., Ternes, M., & Stinson, V. (2023). The relationship between victim impact
statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.
Law and Human Behavior, 47(4), 484–498.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=pdh&AN=
2023-83607-001&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s5672447

Janzen, E. (2020). Dangers of a punitive approach to victim participation in
sentencing: Victim impact statements after the victims bill of rights act.
Manitoba Law Journal, 43(4), 85-106.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING

30

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/themanitobalawjournal/index.php/mlj/article/view/
1214/1199
Manikis, M. (2015). Victim impact statements at sentencing: Towards a clearer
understanding of their aims. University of Toronto Law Journal, 65(2), 85-123.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2869383
Markin, T. (2017). Victim rights in sentencing: An examination of victim impact
statements. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 22(1), 95-119.
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/victim-rights-sentencingexamination-impact/docview/1869028119/se-2
Miller, K. L. (2015). You can’t stop the bell from ringing.” protean, unpredictable, and
persisting: The victim impact statement in the context of sexually assaulted women.
[Doctorate thesis, University of Toronto].
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/71563/1/Miller_KarenLee_201511_PhD_thesis.pdf
Nicol, J. (2020). Sentencing in Canada. Library of Parliament
https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/BackgroundP
apers/PDF/2020-06-e.pdf

R v Gabriel, 1999 CanLII 15050 (ONSC)
R v Nomm, 2009 CanLII 367 (NSSC)
Roberts, J.V., & Edgar, A. (2006, March 31). Victim impact statements at sentencing:
judicial experiences and perceptions: A survey of three jurisdictions. Department
of Justice Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/justice/J411-2006-eng.pdf
Roberts, J. V., & Manikis, M. (2010). Victim impact statements at sentencing: The
relevance of ancillary harm. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 15(1), 1-25.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT & SENTENCING
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/victim-impact-statements-atsentencing-relevance/docview/821569717/se-2
Ruparelia, R. (2012). All that glitters is not gold: The false promise of victim
impact statements (pp.665-700). University of Ottawa Press.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381582
Skolnik, T. (2021). Precedent, principles, and presumptions. UBC Law Review, 54(3),
935. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2021CanLIIDocs13860#
Smith, A. M. (2012). Victim impact statements: past, present and a look to the future.
Carswell.
Young, A.N. (2001, August). The role of the victim in the criminal Process: A literature
review - 1989 to 1999. Department of Justice, Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr00_vic20/rr00_vic20.pdf

31