Abstract
Recent legislation has contributed to an increasing number of victims participating in the trial process by way of providing victim impact statements (VISs). The present study evaluated jurors’ perceptions of VISs in a jury-eligible sample. Participants were 402 jury-eligible community members in the southwestern United States. Using a vignette-based method, VIS presence and content (i.e., Victim Harm versus Victim Emotion information) were examined for their influence on sentencing decisions and blame attribution. Individual differences of need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC) were featured as moderators of these relations. Notable results included significantly lengthier sentencing recommendations and decreased levels of victim blame in the presence of a VIS, regardless of content. In addition, juror NFC was significantly positively associated with perpetrator blame, while NFA moderated the relation between VIS content and sentencing length. The presence of a VIS impacted blame and sentencing, although jury panel member individual differences moderated such effects. Implications for victim rights policy, trial consultation, and social–emotional theory are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
