VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS AND THEIR ROLE IN SENTENCING

ABSTRACT

Victim Impact Statements (VIS) have become an important tool in modern sentencing frameworks, enabling victims to present the emotional, physical, financial, and social consequences of crime directly before the court. Traditionally, criminal justice systems prioritised state and offender interests, leaving victims marginalised. The development of VIS reflects a shift toward participatory and restorative justice, recognising victims’ dignity and right to involvement. This paper analyses the meaning, purpose, legal framework, case law, and global practices regarding VIS, with a focus on India. It explores both the positive role VIS play in promoting informed sentencing and its limitations, including risks of prejudice, inequality, and emotional influence. The article concludes that VIS enhance fairness and transparency when applied with judicial safeguards that balance victim participation with the rights of the accused. Strengthening legislative clarity and procedural guidance is essential for their effective implementation.

• INTRODUCTION

Criminal justice systems have historically been designed around the state and the offender, with victims treated merely as witnesses rather than participants. Sentencing traditionally focused on the offender’s culpability, intent, and proportionality of punishment. The emotional, psychological, and economic consequences experienced by victims rarely influenced sentencing decisions. Over time, however, the increasing recognition of victims’ rights and the concept of participatory justice have led to the development of Victim Impact Statements (VIS). These statements allow victims to express, in their own words, the harm and loss resulting from a crime, especially at the sentencing stage after conviction.

This paper explores the meaning, purpose, development, legal framework, advantages, challenges, comparative practices, case law, and future directions related to VIS. It argues that victim impact statements enhance justice by acknowledging victims and supporting proportionate sentencing, while emphasising the need for safeguards to protect fairness and impartiality.

• MEANING AND PURPOSE OF VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

A Victim Impact Statement is a written or oral account presented to the court during sentencing, explaining how the crime has affected the victim physically, emotionally, socially, or financially. Unlike evidence regarding guilt, a VIS becomes relevant only after conviction and contributes to determining an appropriate sentence.

The major purposes of VIS include:

• Providing courts with a full understanding of the harm caused.
• Enhancing victim participation, dignity, and recognition.
• Supporting informed judicial discretion at sentencing.
• Helping determine victim compensation.
• Promoting restorative justice by encouraging offenders to acknowledge consequences.

VIS, therefore, represents a shift toward a more balanced and victim-inclusive criminal process.

• HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The concept of VIS grew out of the victims’ rights movement of the late twentieth century, particularly in the United States. Traditionally, common law systems viewed crimes as offences against the state rather than individuals, leaving victims with little say in the outcome. The social reform movements of the 1960s and 1970s challenged this approach, arguing for participatory justice.

The first statutory recognition is attributed to California through the Victims’ Bill of Rights of 1982. A major turning point came with Payne v Tennessee in 1991, where the United States Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of VIS in capital sentencing, overturning earlier rulings such as Booth v Maryland and South Carolina v Gathers, which had restricted such evidence on grounds of prejudice.

Following the US reforms, other countries introduced similar mechanisms. Canada incorporated VIS through amendments to the Criminal Code. The UK recognised Victim Personal Statements. Australia and New Zealand integrated VIS within restorative justice frameworks. In India, although there is no separate statute specifically governing VIS, evolving jurisprudence and compensation schemes under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) support the concept.

In 2013, the Justice Verma Committee strongly recommended victim participation in sentencing, especially in cases of sexual violence.

• LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND JUDICIAL APPROACH

In India, VIS is indirectly recognised through several provisions and judicial pronouncements.

These include:

• Key legal provisions

• Section 235(2) CrPC: allows both prosecution and defence to be heard on sentencing. Courts have interpreted this to permit the victim’s perspective on the impact of crime.
• Section 357 and 357A CrPC: empower courts to order compensation to victims based on the harm described, thus linking VIS with sentencing and compensation.
• Victim compensation schemes formulated by states under 357A CrPC.

• Judicial recognition

The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of considering victims’ voices:

• In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the criminal justice system must address victim suffering, and courts are duty-bound to award appropriate compensation reflecting the harm caused.
• In Reena Hazarika v State of Assam, the Court emphasised the need to balance victims’ rights and the rights of the accused, recognising that justice must consider all stakeholders.
• In Karan v State of NCT of Delhi, dealing with the trauma of sexual violence survivors, the Court acknowledged that sentencing must reflect not only the seriousness of the offence but also its lasting effects on victims.

These decisions ground VIS in constitutional values such as the right to dignity and fair procedure under Article 21.

• ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VIS IN SENTENCING

Victim impact statements contribute to sentencing in meaningful ways:

• Providing a fuller picture of harm

Medical reports and legal documents rarely convey the emotional toll of crime. VIS allow the court to see beyond measurable physical injuries.

• Strengthening legitimacy and trust

Allowing victims to speak promotes transparency and confidence in judicial outcomes.

• Enabling informed discretion

Sentencing involves balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. VIS help judges understand the real severity of consequences.

• Promoting restorative justice

Hearing directly from victims may foster remorse and encourage rehabilitation.

• Influencing compensation decisions

Descriptions of losses help courts justify and quantify compensation under Section 357A CrPC.

• CRITICISMS AND CHALLENGES

Despite advantages, VIS face criticism:

• Risk of emotional bias

Critics fear that emotionally charged statements may distort proportionality, leading to harsh sentencing influenced by sympathy rather than objectivity.

• Inequality between victims

Some victims are more articulate, educated, or supported. Sentencing should not depend on expressiveness.

• Re-traumatisation

Recounting trauma in open court may intensify psychological harm.

• Confusion about the purpose

Criminal liability should depend on the offender’s actions, not the victim’s response. The same offence may produce different impacts on different victims.

• Conflict with fair trial guarantees

The rights of the accused must remain central to sentencing standards. Courts, therefore, treat VIS as informative rather than determinative.

• ETHICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

The debate around VIS requires balancing:

• The accused’s rights to equality, fairness, and due process.
• Victims’ rights to dignity, access to justice, and participation.

The US Supreme Court in Payne accepted VIS as relevant evidence but warned that sentencing must not be driven solely by emotion. Indian courts similarly stress constitutional balance under Articles 14 and 21, ensuring VIS complements rather than dominates sentencing decisions.

• COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

• CASE LAW OVERVIEW

International

• Payne v Tennessee, 501 US 808 (1991) – upheld VIS in capital cases, emphasising victim recognition.
• Booth v Maryland, 482 US 496 (1987) – earlier ruling excluding VIS, later overturned.
• South Carolina v Gathers, 490 US 805 (1989) – restricted VIS until reversed in Payne.

Indian

• Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 – compensation as integral justice.
• Reena Hazarika v State of Assam (2018) 13 SCC 289 – victim rights central to justice.
• Karan v State of NCT of Delhi (2023) 5 SCC 788 – recognised long-term trauma and the need to reflect consequences in sentencing.

• FUTURE DIRECTIONS

For VIS to be effective, reforms should include:

• Statutory definition and procedure for VIS in CrPC.
• Training for judges, prosecutors, police, and counsellors.
• Psychological and legal assistance in preparing VIS.
• Guidelines to maintain sentencing consistency.
• Integration with restorative justice where appropriate.

These reforms would create a balanced system that respects both fairness to the accused and recognition of victims.

• CONCLUSION

Victim impact statements represent an important shift in criminal justice toward a more humane and participatory approach. They give victims a voice, promote transparency, and support informed sentencing that accounts for real harm. At the same time, their use must be carefully regulated to avoid prejudice, inequality, or emotional dominance in sentencing decisions. When applied with judicial sensitivity and constitutional safeguards, VIS strengthens justice by acknowledging that crimes affect real human lives, not just legal categories.

Ultimately, the challenge is to preserve objectivity and proportionality while ensuring victims are meaningfully heard. VIS will continue to play a growing role in shaping sentencing frameworks as criminal justice systems evolve toward balance, restoration, and dignity.