NCJ Number
178869
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Dated: October 1999 Pages: 530-553
Date Published
October 1999
Length
24 pages
Annotation
An analysis of interviews with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys responsible for implementing the victim impact statement program in South Australia revealed that these practitioners routinely objectified and thereby minimized the victim's injuries and thus imposed an implicit "reasonable victim" test to assess victim impact statements.
Abstract
The research focused on the reasons for the lack of a significant effect of victim impact statements on court outcomes and routines. Data were collected in Adelaide, South Australia. Forty-two police and crown prosecutors, defense attorneys, magistrates, judges, and justices were interviewed about their experiences with victim impact statements. The structured interviews usually lasted 1-2 hours each and took place between February 1994 and April 1994, about 4 years after the laws mandating the use of victim impact statements took effect. The professionals' responses were analyzed according to Sykes and Matza's notion of techniques of neutralization as a case study of the ways in which law reform efforts are subordinated to the competing value systems and organizational imperatives of court workgroups. Results revealed that the rationalizations used by the participants were sometimes part of a conscious effort not to disrupt the status quo. However, resistance to a mandated reform more often became embedded in practitioners' thinking about their role and the nature of criminal justice adjudication. Findings confirmed that law reform cannot be achieved through legislative fiat; that the dynamics of court practice, organizational incentives, and strategic continuing education all need attention; and that limits exist to the flexibility of the criminal justice system in managing contradictory demands. Table, notes, and 55 references (Author abstract modified)