Victim Participation in the Plea Negotiation Process in canada

5. Victim Participation In The Criminal Justice System: The Precedent Of Victim Impact Statements In the Sentencing Process (cont'd)

5.3 Who is the Victim?

In the United States, a certain degree of concern has been expressed in relation to the issue of the appropriate scope of the term, "victim," in the context of victim impact statements. [33] Indeed, it has been suggested that, in many American jurisdictions, the definition of a victim is far too broad and that permitting an excessively broad range of individuals to submit victim impact statements signifies "a disturbing trend toward the unrestricted admissibility of prejudicial evidence at the expense of rational sentencing" (Donahoe, 1999, p. 27). However, according to Sullivan (1998, p. 22) the relevant Canadian legislation employs a more restrictive definition of "victim," although it is nevertheless "sufficiently broad so that it permits family members of homicide victims to present statements" (Sullivan, 1998, p. 22). [34]

There is no reason why the current Criminal Code definition of "victim" – for the purpose of identifying who is eligible to submit a victim impact statement – should not also be used in the context of victim participation in plea bargaining hearings. Where appropriate, family members should be permitted to provide input into the judicial decision–making process that is designed to determine whether a proposed plea agreement should be accepted or rejected – as is currently the case with victim impact statements. However, further expansion of the legislative definition of "victim" should be considered only with the greatest caution since the presence of too many parties "at the table" may render it extraordinarily difficult to reach an acceptable plea agreement.