Victim impact statements and sentencing memorandums are already widely used in court in every state. Despite the states’ laws differentiating, sometimes significantly, the basic role of jurisdiction remains the same. Its purpose includes retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, restoration, and deterrence (Hartley et al, 2017). Many opposing forces serve in court in order to achieve these goals successfully. There are aspects that are not in the judge’s power, like mandatory sentencing for certain types of convictions, however, every case still remains unique. Paying more attention to victim impact statements and sentencing memorandum will certainly have its imminent effects, and despite its downsides discussed later, my opinion is that judges should pay more attention to these parts of the process.
Firstly, a closer and more careful inspection of these two documents will allow the judge to become aquatinted with the case from within. Reading through the offender’s memorandum, an experienced judge will be able to learn more about the personality and true intentions of them than the conditions of the court will ever make space for. It is expectant of the offender to bend the truth, however, the judge would be able to devise it when presented with other documents, such as the criminal history. The concept of “acceptance of responsibility” constitutes the main problem with this part of the hearing, as many “offenders learn to act contrite and make false statements about their acceptance of responsibility” (Hartley et al., p. 249). Thus, the judicial expertise becomes even more valuable when dealing with sentencing memorandums.
Victim impact statements function similarly to sentencing memorandums; however, they serve a slightly different purpose. In this document, the victim is supposed to expose to the court the true circumstances of the crime committed. However, they tend to be emotional, as they are written by a person who was affected directly. Therefore, both of these parts of a hearing can, in fact, mislead the court, however, they also “personify” crime in a sense that they give the judge better idea of the main actors of the felony. In that role, they may be greatly beneficial in passing a fair judgement – however, the judge’s responsibility raises even higher. Thus, I consider these documents to be of high importance, and the jurisdiction should give it more attention – the punishments will only become more realistic.
Reference
Hartley R. D., Rabe G. A., Champion D. J., & Champion D. J. (2017). Criminal Courts. VitalSource.