The use of victim impact statements

Hello.

A couple of hours ago I was hearing and reading about a new controversy concerning victim impact statements (VIS) and decided it was worth a post. If you haven't heard, a judge was overheard saying that the statements have no bearing on the outcomes of proceedings at all. He thought his comments couldn't be heard and he's since apologised.

I've never been in court but I'm aware that some of you, in your professional lives, may have been required to give testimony or provide evidence in cases. So I'd be interested in your opinions on this issue whether you're studying criminology or not. Personally, I believe in the power of language to change outcomes. How language is used is one of the central tenets of how I approach my job. Therefore, if people are taking the time to write statements which must be incredibly hard to compose, you'd hope it would be with a tangible outcome.

The academic evidence on VIS is inevitably mixed. Some research suggests that juries are affected by the sex of the person reading the statement, the statement in relation to the severity of the crime and a whole host of other factors. You can find plenty of articles on DISCOVER if you so choose.

If you'd like to have a look at how the BBC is reporting the story then you can find it here.

Offender mentors

Heard a story on Today programme this morning that I thought I'd share. This is one for anyone interested in the issue of reoffending rates in the UK. The government is about to launch a scheme which attempts to offer every short sentence prisoner a mentor, who will offer advice on how to avoid returning to crime. It's an interesting idea, despite the obvious sticking points of funding and supervising the scheme.

If you click here you'll be able to hear an interview with a former prisoner who benefited from just such a scheme.