RELEVANT
FOCUSED
READY

Effects of Victim Impact Statements on Sentencing Outcomes
Opinder Singh Kahlon

Introduction

Discussion

Victim impact statements (VIS) have become an essential component of the
Canadian criminal justice system, allowing victims to participate in the
judicial proceedings that follow a crime. These statements allow victims to
express the personal impact of a crime, including emotional, psychological,
and financial harm, at sentence hearings (Dufour et al., 2023).
The research examines the effects of VIS on sentencing decisions in
Canada and whether using it results in fairer or more inconsistent
outcomes? How do judges, victims, and legal practitioners assess the
influence of VIS on the equity and efficacy of sentencing.

This discussion highlights the role of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) in
Canada's legal system, emphasizing the importance of balancing victims'
emotional demands with judicial impartiality while accounting for both
expressive and instrumental roles. VIS gives victims a formal voice in
court, empowering them and adding therapeutic benefit through emotional
expression. However, this expressive role might bring unintentional
emotional bias in sentencing, particularly when multiple statements
enhance the perceived harm, thus leading to unfair punishment. To address
this, procedural guidelines and judicial training on managing emotional
material in VIS may help to ensure justice and limit the danger of undue
bias (Roberts & Edgar, 2006; Manikis, 2015).

Background
Victim Impact Statements were officially adopted into the Canadian
criminal justice system in 1988, as part of a greater push to acknowledge
victims' rights and voices in court proceedings. Prior to its integration,
punishment was almost entirely based on legal issues such as the nature of
the offense and the offender's background, overlooking the victim (Roberts
& Edgar, 2006). This approach often left victims feeling excluded and
emotionally neglected during the legal process. VIS were created to fix this
gap by letting victims or their representatives to submit a statement
expressing the emotional, psychological, and financial consequences of the
crime on their lives.

Methods
The study investigates the impact of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) on
Canadian criminal court sentences. It uses literature review and secondary
data analysis to select relevant studies from 2000-2024. The study includes
Canadian judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and victims in criminal
cases with filed VIS. The study also examines judicial rulings and case
records to understand how VIS affects sentence decisions. To find relevant
sources, both the JIBC library and Google Scholar were used, and articles
were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1. The table shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria used.
Inclusion Criteria
Criminal cases in Canada with
submitted VIS
Canadian judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, victims
Offenses with variable sentencing
outcomes
Canada
Cases with publicly available VIS
and sentencing records

Exclusion Criteria
Non-criminal cases (e.g., civil,
family law)
Legal professionals outside
Canada, Public
Sentences determined by plea
bargains
Non-Canadian jurisdictions
Incomplete or inaccessible case
records

Conclusions or Recommendations
In conclusion, Victim Impact Statements (VIS) indicate an important shift
in the Canadian criminal justice system, providing victims with a legal path
to express the personal consequences of crimes committed against them.
Although VIS provide support to victims and yield therapeutic advantages,
their impact on sentencing is varied and occasionally inconsistent. Research
indicates that while victim impact statements offer significant insights into
the emotional, psychological, and financial effects on victims, their
influence on sentencing outcomes tends to be limited due to the judiciary's
commitment to proportionality and established legal precedents. The
variability in VIS application, especially in instances with multiple
statements or differing crime types, indicates the need for clearer guidelines
and enhanced judicial training to ensure fairness. Hence, the aim should be
promoting legislative policies and integrating trauma-informed practices in
VIS proceedings could improve the system's capacity to support victims
while maintaining judicial impartiality.

References

Results/Findings
The literature research highlights numerous essential topics regarding the
use and influence of Victim Impact Statements (VIS) within the Canadian
legal system. Although VIS are valued for providing victims a voice in
court, their efficacy in directly affecting sentencing remains debatable.
Research indicates that while VIS can improve the sentencing process for
victims and promote emotional closure, their effect on sentencing results
can often be minimal (Dufour et al., 2023). Also, VIS are more common
and substantial in significant crimes, particularly violent offenses, with
41% Manitoba judges responding that they are most useful in serious
crimes, particularly violent offenses, and insignificant in lesser cases where
their usage could affect resources and dilute their impact (Roberts & Edgar,
2006). Judges generally value proportionality, legal precedents, and other
objective criteria above subjective victim experiences, hence reducing the
influence of Victim Impact Statements on sentencing severity (Roberts &
Edgar, 2006).
Research provide the therapeutic significance of VIS for victims. Many
victims perceive the preparation and presentation of a VIS as empowering,
enabling them to articulate their experiences, attain acknowledgment, and
even promote emotional healing (Cole, 2003). However, certain victims
experience re-traumatization, particularly when their words are overlooked
or during cross-examination (Roberts & Manikis, 2010). Although VIS
offer symbolic significance, caution is warranted in employing them
exclusively as instruments for promoting more severe sentencing (Smith,
2012). Additionally, judges typically regard Victim Impact Statements as
crucial in understanding the victim's experiences, however they practice
prudence to mitigate emotional bias in their decisions (R. v. Nomm 2009,
para. 14).

PBDLES

The 2015 legislative reforms attempted to increase victim participation in
court, however policy loopholes continue, resulting in inconsistent VIS
quality and impact. Instrumentally, VIS assist judges in understanding the
human impact of the crime; yet the lack of uniform guidelines for judging
them can lead to disparity in punishment, leaving victims with unsatisfied
expectations. Therefore, by improving VIS presentation and judicial
methods would lead to improve consistency and decrease emotional
involvement in sentencing decisions. Finally, the argument over punitive
versus restorative justice viewpoints emphasizes VIS's dual role. The
expressive function promotes victim participation and trauma-informed
procedures, whereas the instrumental function clarifies harm severity,
guiding proportional sentence (Roberts, 2008). Thus, integrating
psychological care for victims and exploring restorative measures could
help VIS play a larger role in the legal process.

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-d122-46788916-1c3cf5fbb237/content
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
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
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/J4-11-2006eng.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. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/victimimpact-statements-at-sentencing-relevance/docview/821569717/se-2
Roberts, J. (2008). Victim Impact Statements: Lessons Learned and Future
Priorities. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rppr/cj-jp/victim/rr07_vic4/rr07_vic4.pdf
Smith, A. M. (2012). Victim impact statements: past, present and a look to
the future. Carswell.

Justice Institute of British Columbia

November 2024