Communication in Sentencing: Exploring the Expressive Function of Victim Impact Statements1

The role of the victim in the sentencing process continues to generate controversy among scholars and practitioners across many jurisdictions. In this article we address some of the persistent objections to allowing victim input into sentencing. By placing the debate on victim input within its historical context, we suggest that the movement to provide victims with a voice has been derailed, as the communicativemodel of victim input — originally envisioned by the reform movement as its justification — was replaced by a model that stresses the impact of VIS on sentencing. We argue that much of the lingering opposition to victim input rights has been animated by this ‘impact’ model, which we argue is theoretically misconceived, empirically unsupported and at odds with major sentencing aims. We reintroduce the communicative model, which reflects the original intent and purpose of the victim reform concerning input, elaborating on its advantages for victims and offenders. We then provide two examples from the field to illustrate the therapeutic benefits of the model for both victims and offenders. We conclude with a call to reassess current theory and practice regarding victim integration in sentencing and offer some policy recommendations regarding the optimal way to integrate the voice of the victim at sentencing.