Victim personal statements: investigating their impact on judges’ decisions about guilt and sentencing

• In Event: Judicial Discretion in the Sentencing Process 1.

Abstract

Victims have become increasingly important participants in Dutch criminal proceedings. This is particularly evident from the recent extension of the right to deliver a victim personal statement (VPS): at present, victims are not only allowed to express the impact of the crime, but also to share their opinions about the guilt and desired punishment of the defendant. As victims exercise this right before the court decides about these topics, legal scholars are concerned that this violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial. After all, a VPS is not to be used as evidence in court and VPS delivery should not result in systematic sentencing disparities. However, a strong and emotion-packed VPS may affect judges’ thought- and reasoning processes and may eventually result in biased decision-making about guilt and sentencing: more guilty verdicts and harsher sentences may be expected if a VPS is being delivered. Whether this is true remains to be empirically investigated though. This study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by experimentally examining the impact of a VPS on legal decision-making. Mock jurors were given detailed case files that closely resemble actual case files, whilst systematically varying the presence and content of the VPS. Participants were asked to decide and elaborate on whether the defendant was guilty and, if found guilty, to provide a sentence consistent with actual sentencing practices. During the presentation detailed results of the experiment will be discussed, as well as implications for legal practice. By understanding the potential biases introduced by a VPS, we can better inform policy-makers and legal professionals about the use of VPS in courtrooms.

Authors

• Joyce Schot, Leiden University

• Maarten Kunst, Leiden University

• Janne van Doorn, Leiden University

• Jan de Keijser, Leiden University