Where Do I Stand?: An Exploration of the Rules That Regulate Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The victims' rights movement has helped promote opportunities for victim participation within the criminal justice system. One such opportunity, the creation and delivery of a victim impact statement, has generated significant empirical attention. Most of this research explores the effects of participation on specific outcomes (e.g., sentencing, victim satisfaction). Yet relatively little is known about the implementation of victim participation in the courtroom by criminal justice workers. Using trial transcripts, courtroom observations, and interviews with criminal justice officials and victims, the current study examines the rules that regulate victim participation, revealing how victims are incorporated into the justice process.

Keywords:

• victim participation
• victim impact statement
• crime victims' rights
• criminal courts

Notes

1. In general, opportunities for victim participation and notification are differentiated from enforceable rights. For example, New York State Executive Law Article 2 states that victims of certain felony-level crimes should be consulted by a district attorney in order for the prosecutor to obtain the victim's views regarding the case. Yet failure to do so “shall not be cause for delaying the proceedings against the defendant nor shall it affect the validity of a conviction, judgment or order.”

2. Research on the experiences of families of homicide victims has used a number of different terms to describe this group including survivors, indirect victims, secondary victims (Karmen, 2010) and covictims (Vollum & Longmire, 2007). This study refers to families of crime victims as “victims” or “families of crime victims.”

3. Victims of misdemeanor crimes can create a written victim impact statement for a presentence investigation report. Allocution is generally not permitted.

4. See New York State Criminal Procedure Law § 380.50.

5. New York State Criminal Procedure Law § 380.50.

6. 45/47 of observed cases; 97/101 of collected transcripts; 26/28 of interviewees.

7. In People v. Arroyo (2001), People v. Iovinella (2002), and People v. Harrington (2005) New York judges ruled that multiple members of one family were allowed to deliver impact statements in court at sentencing.

8. Individuals interviewed were not asked about the number of victim impact statements delivered at sentencing, so this information is not available.

9. These guidelines can be viewed on the New York State Unified Court System Web site at http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/34.shtml.

10. Rules of the Chief Judge, Part 34, Guidelines for New York State Court Facilities, Guideline VI.3: Design guidelines for security, from http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/34.shtml