Initially, the law governing the use of Victim Impact Statement (VIS) was not in existence. After a long struggle, the law has been amended, and the testimony of a victim is admissible in a court of law (Cassell, 2009). The Supreme Court of the United States of America has contributed to the development of this law in a variety of ways. First, the law is recognized in the constitution which is upheld by the supreme court of the United States of America. This enhances the legality of a victim’s statement during trial. Secondly, the Supreme Court allows victims a chance to testify on their feelings on the case. Such a testimony is considered as admissible during sentencing. Judges, as well as jurors, take this into consideration. Furthermore, the court has ensured that this law is enshrined in all levels of the justice system of the United States of America.
Why the Supreme Court Developed the Law Governing Victim Impact Assessment
- Information to the one passing the sentence
There are a number of grounds why the Supreme Court of the United States of America developed this law (Cassell, 2009). Thinking systematically and using the evidences, the reasons can be classified into four principal categories. First is the fact that the court felt the need to provide sufficient information to the ones passing the sentence. In most cases, the sentence is usually passed by the judge. However, jurors can also assist in this quest. Sufficient information is required if a fair judgment is to be imposed. All the information on how the victim was harmed is necessary. This is especially true if the death sentence or any other severe form of punishment is in the offing.
A typical paragon in this case is Payne v. Tennessee where the victim was allowed to testify (Gamble, 2001). A similar instance was experienced in the case of Booth v. Maryland. Through the testimony of the victims, the full harm of the defendant could be realized. It would be axiomatic if punishment was to be meted out without understanding the scope, nature and impact of the crime committed.
- Benefits to the victim
One of the most salient reasons for developing the Victim Impact Statement was to benefit the victim. Apparently, such a statement will give the victim a chance to participate in this rite of allocution. When a victim acknowledges their status as a victim, and they express how they feel, restitution is the result. As in the case of Booth v. Maryland, the family members were given a chance to describe their emotional status. This gave the sentencing panel a chance to recognize the suffering of the victim.
This is also known to offer therapeutic effects. A victim expressing their feelings to the perpetrator is likely to enable them attain closure. It is not the sentencing of the perpetrator but the ability to express feelings that is therapeutic. A victim is capable of knowing how they will deal with an issue in the process of healing. A thorough assessment of cumulative literature reveals that this is one way by which a victim regains a sense of worth and dignity. The therapeutic jurisprudence movement can ascertain to this.
- Improve the perceived fairness in the punishment meted to the perpetrator
In some instances, the court has been accused of either being too fair or too strict when it comes to sentencing (Cassell, 2009). The victim’s statement changes the perception that judgment is a two dimensional affair between the prosecution and the defendant. The contemporary justice system requires a statement from the victim in order to ensure that both the victim and perpetrator are fairly heard. This plays a crucial role in the offering of a just sentence.
A criminal case should not simply follow a venerable due course, it should give a chance for the victim to express themselves. This is not a case solely between the justice system and the perpetrator, a third party who is the victim is involved (Callihan, 2003). The supreme court of the united state of America acknowledges this fact. This is another reason why this law has been developed. Basically, the incorporation of all parties leaves them fulfilled, and this meets the goal of the justice system.
- It explains the harm of the crime to the defendant
Many are times when the perpetrator does not know the extent of harm that their crime has caused (Callihan, 2003). It requires the explanation of the perpetrator to gain empathy, and this is an effective way of working towards rehabilitation. For example; in the case of Payne v. Tennessee, the perpetrator is said to have had a mental illness. It took the testimony of the victim for him to be sensitized on his crime. This could have helped in deterring him from committing any similar crimes. A similar occurrence can be seen in the case of the state of South Carolina v. Gathers. It also took the victims testimony for the perpetrator to see his mistake.
References
Callihan, J. (2003). Victim Impact Assessments in Capital Trials: A Selected Bibliography. New York: Cornell UP.
Cassell, P. (2009). In Defense of Victim Impact Statements. Ohio state journal of criminal law. 6, 611-649.
Gamble, N. (2001). The Second Rape: Society’s Continued Betrayal of The Victim. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
