Neutralizing Victim Reform: Legal Professionals' Perspectives on Victims and Impact Statements

Abstract

Despite the high hopes of victims' rights advocates, and contrary to the warnings about negative consequences, the evidence demonstrates that victim impact statements (VISs) have had little influence on criminal proceedings and court outcomes. This study, based on interviews with judges, prosecutors, and defense counsels charged with the implementation of the VIS scheme in South Australia, shows that practitioners routinely objectify, and thereby minimize, the injuries sustained by victims, and impose an implicit “reasonable victim” test to evaluate VISs. Professionals' responses are analyzed according to Sykes and Matza's notion of techniques of neutralization as a case study of the ways in which law reform endeavors are subordinated to the competing value systems and organizational imperatives of court workgroups.