Victim’s Movement & Victim Impact Statements

The Victim’s Movement

  • Emerged in the 1970s as a reaction to:
    • Dissatisfaction with the criminal justice (CJ) system
    • Experiences of secondary victimisation and victim-blaming
    • Perceived lack of formal rights, recognition, and services for victims
  • Comprised of diverse lobbying groups pushing for expanded legal rights and support services

Major Reforms Attributed to the Movement

  • Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse
  • Victim compensation legislation
    • First Australian compensation act enacted in 19671967
  • Mandatory / preferred arrest policies for family-violence offenders
  • Restrictions on victim questioning during legal proceedings to reduce re-traumatisation
  • Numerous additional reforms catalogued by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (see: http://www.alrc.gov.au/)
  • Creation of the option for victims to present a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) during sentencing/parole hearings

Victim Impact Statements (VIS)

  • Definition: A written or oral statement by the victim (or representative) describing how the offence has affected them emotionally, physically, financially, and socially
  • First practical use: Fresno, California – 1976
  • Formal California legislation: 19821982 (in part spurred by fears a Manson family member could be paroled)
  • Core goals of VIS:
    • Provide the victim a “voice” in court
    • Inform the court of the harm and consequences of the crime
    • Elevate victim status within proceedings
    • Aid victims’ personal rehabilitation / recovery

Sentencing & Policy Milestones

  • 1980s–1990s: Rapid spread of sentencing reforms incorporating VIS worldwide
  • 1982 – U.S. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime:

“Judges should allow for, and give appropriate weight to, input at sentencing from victims of violent crime.”

  • South Australia – 1988: First Australian jurisdiction to introduce VIS at sentencing (later extended to parole hearings)
  • Other Australian states subsequently adopted the practice

Victim Satisfaction & Experience

  • Surveys report 45%−82%45\% - 82\% of victims are satisfied after delivering a VIS
  • A clear majority would choose to submit a VIS again if given the opportunity
  • Despite satisfaction, many victims remain confused about the precise legal purpose and effect of their statements

Empirical Findings on VIS Impact

  • Content Quality: VIS seldom include prejudicial or irrelevant material
  • Sentencing Severity: No consistent evidence that VIS lead to harsher penalties
  • Legal Culture Shift: Judges and lawyers are becoming increasingly accepting of VIS

Practical & Ethical Considerations

  • Balances the therapeutic benefits for victims with the need to preserve procedural fairness for offenders
  • Raises questions about:
    • Potential emotional influence on judges
    • Ensuring equality of access (e.g., language barriers, literacy)
    • Maintaining objectivity while honouring victims’ voices
  • Continues to evolve through legislative reviews and comparative research (e.g., ALRC recommendations)

Key Dates & Numbers (Quick Reference)

  • 19671967 – First Australian victim compensation act
  • 1970s1970s – Birth of the Victim’s Movement
  • 19761976 – First VIS used (Fresno, CA)
  • 19821982 – California enacts VIS legislation; U.S. Task Force endorsement
  • 19881988 – South Australia adopts VIS
  • 45%−82%45\% - 82\% – Victim satisfaction range with delivering VIS