Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals across Canada: Summary of Victims of Crime Respondents: Summary of Victims of Crime Respondents
3. Findings from the Victims of Crime Respondents (cont'd)
3. Findings from the Victims of Crime Respondents (cont'd)
3.5 Victim Impact Statements (cont'd)
The interviews also explored the adequacy of information received by victims. When asked whether the information explained victim impact statements so that they understood what could be included, four-fifths of victims who received information said yes. Seventy percent said that the information explained that their statement would be provided to defence counsel and the accused and that the information provided sufficient detail so that they knew how to complete the statement (what form, if any, to use; where to submit form, etc.). Just over two-thirds said that the information explained how victim impact statements are used in court. Table 22 provides full results.
| Information Provided on Victim Impact Statements | Victims (n=81) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| What could be included in a victim impact statement | 65 | 80% |
| What victim generally needed to do to complete a victim impact statement | 57 | 70% |
| That once submitted to a Crown Attorney, the victim impact statement has to be provided to the defence counsel and the accused | 57 | 70% |
| How victim impact statements are used in court | 56 | 69% |
Note: Victimsse; total sums to more than 100%. could provide more than one respon
However, a substantial proportion of victims who received information about victim impact statements described it as unclear or incomplete [7]. Ten victims reported that, in general, they found the written instructions insufficient or confusing, and therefore, they relied heavily on victim services to assist them with their statements. Other victims detailed the ways in which the information was insufficient. Several said that they did not know what information victims can include in their impact statement (n=9), or how the court would use the impact statement (n=8). A few (n=4) said that the information did not make clear the disclosure of the impact statement to defence counsel and the accused; finding out after the fact that the information went to these individuals was very upsetting. Several victims (n=7) also reported receiving conflicting advice on when to complete the victim impact statement. This seemed to occur because of the concerns about cross-examination on the impact statement; for example, one victim said that the Crown Attorney wanted the impact statement as soon as possible, while victim services said that he should wait.
Victims were asked how best to provide information about victim impact statements. About half of victims liked in-person contact, while 40% said that a brochure would be useful. Victims were equally amenable to contact by telephone or letter. Those victims who preferred oral communication commented that it allows people to ask questions, while those who liked written material said that the ability to refer to the information later was important. Table 23 provides the complete results.
| How Information Should be Provided: | Victims (n=102) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| In person | 52 | 51% |
| Brochure | 41 | 40% |
| Personal letter | 22 | 22% |
| Telephone | 22 | 22% |
| Doesn't matter (any of these) | 2 | 2% |
| Depends on person or type of case | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| No response | 4 | 4% |
| Don't know | 1 | 1% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
Opinion as to when victims should receive this information varied, as shown in Table 24. Thirty-four percent of victims said that someone should provide this information to victims shortly after the crime is reported, and an additional 15% believe that the victim should receive this information shortly after the arrest of the accused or when charges are laid. However, 19% of victims think that the information should be provided close to the time of final disposition (either just before trial or just after a finding of guilt). Eleven percent of victims warned that the information should not be provided too early; victim services should let enough time pass so that the victim is less overwhelmed by the experience.
| When Information Should be Provided: | Victims (n=102) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Shortly after the crime is reported | 35 | 34% |
| Shortly after the arrest of the accused or charges laid | 15 | 15% |
| Just prior to the start of the trial or before guilty plea | 19 | 19% |
| After enough time has passed so victim not overwhelmed | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Don't know or No response | 12 | 12% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
Preparing and Submitting Impact Statements
About two-thirds of victims in cases where someone was charged with the crime prepared a victim impact statement for sentencing (65 of 102). Close to two thirds (n = 40) of the 65 victims who prepared a statement received some form of assistance. As shown in Table 25, 88% (n=35) were assisted by victim services. The others reported assistance from family or friends (n=3), the Crown Attorney (n=2), and police (n=1).
| Who Provided Help to the Victim: | Victims (n=40) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Victim services | 35 | 88% |
| Family or friends | 3 | 8% |
| Crown Attorneys | 2 | 5% |
| Police | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
Victims received several types of assistance with their victim impact statements. Three-quarters said that the person who assisted them either provided the necessary forms or told them where forms could be obtained. About three-quarters had the kinds of information permitted in victim impact statements and the general instructions on how to complete the statement explained to them. For almost two-thirds of victims, the person who assisted them reviewed their statement and collected the statement for submission to the court or Crown Attorneys. A number of victims received the following: assistance in formulating their thoughts (38%); information about where to send their completed statement (28%); and help with completing their statement (20%) where the person assisting them wrote down what the victim said about the crime's effects. Table 26 provides these results.
| Type of Assistance Received With VIS: | Victim (n=40) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Provided with forms | 30 | 75% |
| Explanation of information that can be included in VIS | 29 | 73% |
| Instructions on how to complete VIS | 28 | 70% |
| Review of the completed statement | 25 | 63% |
| Collection of the completed statement | 25 | 63% |
| Help with drafting statement (assist victim with formulating his or her thoughts) | 15 | 38% |
| Informed of where completed statements should be sent | 11 | 28% |
| Help completing statement (writing what victim says) | 8 | 20% |
| Informed of where to obtain forms | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
In spite of this assistance, when asked if they had any problems with completing their victim impact statement, 43% of victims said that they did. They mentioned a number of different difficulties: 14 said that they felt unable to describe how the crime affected them and found the process emotionally difficult; six commented that they were uncertain as to what information they could include; four had to revise their statement because it included inappropriate information; and five did not know who to give the completed statement to or when they should submit the statement[8].
Two-thirds of victims who prepared a statement (45 of 65) submitted it to victim services. Twelve submitted it to the Crown Attorneys. Of those remaining, two gave their statement to the police, one to the court directly, and five could not remember to whom they submitted their statement.
Victims submitted their impact statements at various stages of the criminal justice process. The most common stage was just prior to guilty plea or trial (40%). Their complete responses are presented chronologically in Table 27.
| When the VIS WasSubmitted: | Victims (n=65) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Shortly after crime | 3 | 5% |
| Shortly after arrest of accused | 8 | 12% |
| Shortly after charges were filed | 2 | 3% |
| Just prior to guilty plea or trial | 26 | 40% |
| During trial but before conviction | 9 | 14% |
| After conviction or guilty plea but before sentencing | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Don't know | 4 | 6% |
Presenting Impact Statements
Starting in 1999, victims could read their impact statement in court. Sixty-three of the 65 respondents who completed a victim impact statement had been victimized since 1999, and, therefore, were eligible to read their statement in court. These respondents were asked whether they were told that they could read their statement in court. Of those victims, 48 (76%) were told that they could read their statement in court; nine of these victims chose to do so. The main reasons for not reading the victim impact statement were: there was no conviction or guilty plea (n =11 cases); they did not feel emotionally ready to read the statement (n = 10); they felt it was not worthwhile (n = 5); they did not want to read the statement in public (n = 5); or they found the accused intimidating (n = 4)[9].
Of the 72 victims whose offender pleaded guilty or was convicted at trial, about one-fifth said that the judge asked them whether they had been given the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement. One-third said that the judge already had the statement so the question was not necessary, while one-quarter reported that they were not asked even though they had not submitted a statement. The remaining victims did not remember whether the judge asked them this question.
Satisfaction with Preparing Impact Statements
Before asking victims about their satisfaction with preparing a victim impact statement, the interviews sought insight into their rationale for giving a statement. Over half of the 65 respondents who prepared a statement did so because they wanted the court to understand the effect of the crime (54%); many also wanted the offender to know the crime's full effect (39%). Only 28% of victims who prepared a victim impact statement thought that the statement would affect the offender's sentence. Table 28 presents victims' reasons for preparing a statement.
| Reasons For Preparing a VIS: | Victims (n=65) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Wanted court to understand effect of crime | 35 | 54% |
| Wanted offender to understand effect of crime | 25 | 39% |
| Thought statement would affect sentence | 18 | 28% |
| Felt statement would help victim heal from crime | 12 | 18% |
| Was asked to or encouraged to give statement | 11 | 17% |
| Wanted to have a voice | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Don't know | 2 | 3% |
| No response | 4 | 6% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
Of the 29 [10] victims who did not prepare a statement, nine either have not yet decided on whether to complete a statement (the case is ongoing) or the charges were dropped. Of the 20 who could have prepared a statement but chose not to, about half (n=9) said that they did not know about victim impact statements. Other reasons included: that the crime was too minor to have an effect on them; they were told they were not eligible to complete a statement; and they felt the statement violated their privacy (i.e., they did not want the offender to receive a copy or did not want the statement read in public).
Fifty-three of the 65 victims who prepared a victim impact statement had the opportunity to submit their victim impact statement to the court for consideration at sentencing[11]. Almost two-thirds of these victims reported that they were satisfied with their opportunity to give their statement. Sixteen were dissatisfied and four did not respond.
Most of the 16 victims who expressed dissatisfaction with their opportunity to present their victim impact statement either did not like the restrictions placed on the content of statements (n=6) or wished that they had read their statement (n=7). Those who disliked the content restrictions said that they could not adequately explain themselves and elaborate on the effects of the crime. They also wanted to discuss items such as their history with the offender and were frustrated by not being able to do so. A few said that they wanted to comment on issues like the sentence of the offender (e.g., they wanted to encourage anger management counselling), or their frustration with the criminal justice system. One victim had to substantially revise her victim impact statement because it contained inappropriate information. This person found it traumatic to have to remove information of importance to her.
Seven victims in cases since 1999 wanted to read their victim impact statement but did not have the opportunity. The reasons varied: some were not informed that they could read their statements; others were not allowed to read their statement (either by the judge or the Crown Attorney)[12]; and one wanted to read her statement but was too intimidated by the offender's presence.
Victims who prepared a victim impact statement (n=65) were asked whether they were pleased that they prepared the statement. Over four-fifths (n=53) said that they were. As shown in Table 29, they provided several reasons: victim impact statements give victims a voice and are therapeutic; they give victims an opportunity to make the judge aware of the effect of the crime; and they give victims an opportunity to make the offender aware of the affect of the crime.
| Reasons Victims Were Pleased That They Prepared a VIS: | Victims (n=53) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | |
| Gave them a voice and are therapeutic | 27 | 51% |
| Made judge aware of affect of crime | 13 | 25% |
| Made offender aware of affect of crime | 10 | 19% |
| Generally pleased | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Don't know or No response | 3 | 6% |
Note: Victims could provide more than one response; total sums to more than 100%.
The remaining 12 victims who prepared a victim impact statement were about evenly divided between those who did not know how they felt (n=6) and those who were not pleased (n=6). The latter questioned whether victim impact statements have any effect on sentencing. In fact, a few (n=3) who were pleased that they prepared a statement also questioned whether the statement had any real effect on the outcome.
Of those whose victim impact statement was submitted to the court (n=53), about 40% said that they thought the judge considered their impact statement. When asked what led them to believe this, 10 said that the judge mentioned their impact statement, five believed that the judge appeared moved by their statement, four thought that the sentence received by the offender reflected consideration of the impact statement, and two said that either the Crown Attorney or defence counsel commented on their statement's effectiveness. Victims who thought that the judge did not consider their statement (n=19) gave the following reasons for holding that view: the sentence of the offender was not proportionate to the harm described in the impact statement (n=10); the judge did not mention the impact statement or did not appear moved by the statement (n=5); the Crown Attorney commented that the impact statement would not affect the sentence and/or did not submit the statement (n=4).
[7] Victims could provide more than one explanation of how information was unclear or incomplete.
[8] Victims could provide more than one response.
[9] Victims could provide more than one response.
[10] Of the 102 cases where the accused was charged, there were eight victims who did not respond to the question of whether they prepared a VIS.
[11] The other 12 victims who prepared victim impact statements either are involved in ongoing cases or their accused was not found guilty.
[12] One of these victims was told that reading her victim impact statement was unnecessary because the offender was receiving the maximum penalty under the law.
- Date modified: