Victim Impact Statements at Sentencing: Judicial Experiences and Perceptions A Survey of Three Jurisdictions

6. Judicial Perceptions of the Victim’s Perspective


6. Judicial Perceptions of the Victim’s Perspective

6.1 Opinion divided regarding victims’ understanding of the purpose of VIS

Finally, we turn to the questions that were added to the survey distributed in the three provinces surveyed in 2006. Judges were asked whether they believed that crime victims understand the role that VIS play in the sentencing process. The results are presented in Tables 26 and 27, from which it can be seen that respondents perceived that victims do not fully understand the purpose of these statements.[15] As can be seen in Table 26, across all three jurisdictions only approximately one quarter of the respondents believed that most, almost all or all victims understand the role of the victim impact statement at sentencing. Judges in Alberta seemed most confident that victims understand the role of the impact statement: 31% of Alberta respondents compared to 19% in British Columbia and 25% in Manitoba held this view (Table 27).

Table 26: How well do victims understand the role of the VIS? (Three Jurisdictions Combined, N= 96)
All or almost all victims understand the role of the VIS 4%
Most victims understand the role of the VIS 21%
Some victims understand the role of the VIS 37%
Few victims understand the role of the VIS 25%
Can’t say/ no response 13%
Total 100%

Table 27: How well do victims understand the role of the VIS?
  British Columbia (2006) N= 37 Alberta (2006) N= 42 Manitoba (2006) N= 17
All or almost all victims understand the role of the VIS 8% -- 6%
Most victims understand the role of the VIS 11% 31% 19%
Some victims understand the role of the VIS 31% 31% 69%
Few victims understand the role of the VIS 25% 31% 6%
Can’t say/ no response 25% 7% --
Total 100% 100% 100%

6.2 Many judges believe that VIS increase victim satisfaction

One purpose of the VIS is to promote victim satisfaction with the sentencing process. Respondents were next asked whether in their experience victims who submitted an impact statement appeared more satisfied. Before reviewing the findings it is worth noting that a substantial proportion of respondents expressed the view that they were unable to respond to the question. The trends were consistent across jurisdictions: judges were more likely to hold the view that submitting a victim impact statement promoted victim satisfaction.

Overall, in the three jurisdictions approximately one third of respondents (32%) held the view that victims who submitted a statement were often or always more satisfied (Table 28). Alberta judges held the most positive views. Thus, 39% of respondents in that province believed that victims who submitted a statement often or always seemed more satisfied. In the other two provinces the proportions of respondents holding this view were slightly lower (26% and 27%; see Table 29).

Table 28: Are victims who submit a VIS more satisfied? (Three Jurisdictions Combined; N= 96)
Victims who submit a statement always seem more satisfied 9%
Victims who submit a statement often seem more satisfied 23%
Victims who submit a statement sometimes seem more satisfied 37%
Victims who submit a statement seldom or never more satisfied 8%
Can’t say/ don’t know 23%
Total 100%

Table 29: Are victims who submit a VIS more satisfied?
  British Columbia (2006)
N= 37		 Alberta (2006)
N= 42		 Manitoba (2006)
N= 17
Victims who submit a statement always seem more satisfied 6% 12% 7%
Victims who submit a statement often seem more satisfied 20% 27% 20%
Victims who submit a statement sometimes seem more satisfied 34% 32% 60%
Victims who submit a statement seldom or never more satisfied 6% 12% --
Can’t say/ don’t know 34% 17% 13%
Total
 100% 100% 100%

[15] Research with crime victims in Canada and elsewhere suggests that many victims are confused about the role of the VIS (see Roberts, 2003).