Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Victim Impact Statements in Capital Sentencing: 25 Years Post-Payne

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Psychology and Law

Part of the book series: Advances in Psychology and Law ((APL,volume 3))

Abstract

Victim Impact Statements (VIS) in capital sentencing proceedings have been the subject of debate among justices in three critical U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Booth v. Maryland, 1987; South Carolina v. Gathers, (1989); Payne v. Tennessee, 1991), as well as among numerous legal commentators. The controversy surrounding VIS will be described in detail, focusing specifically on these critical decisions, in addition to outlining the arguments posited by legal scholars. The controversial issues concerning VIS largely address: (1) their relevance to blameworthiness and capacity to distract jurors from their principal role, and (2) their inflammatory appeal and potential to promote arbitrariness in sentencing. Prior to the Payne decision, there was no research that specifically addressed the effects of VIS on jurors in capital sentencing. Since that time, numerous studies have examined VIS and sentencing. Some consistency in findings have begun to emerge regarding important issues such as the emotional appeal of VIS, as well as the degree to which VIS operate as an expression of harm. The empirical research examining the effects of VIS is described, and gaps in our existing research and areas which merit future investigation are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is typical for most states that allow VIS to limit content to include the characteristics of the victim and the effects of the crime (e.g., N.C. Gen Stat. § 15A-833(a)). In some instances, courts limit threats directed at or characterizations of the defendant, including recommendations for punishing the defendant (Robert Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Criminal Division, personal communication, November 7, 2016).

References

  • Aguirre, A., Davin, R. P., Baker, D. V., & Lee, K. (2010). Sentencing outcomes, race, and victim impact evidence in California: A pre- and post-Payne comparison. The Justice Professional: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 11, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.1999.9959510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.4.556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrigo, B. A., & Williams, C. R. (2003). Victim vices, victim voices, and impact statements: On the place of emotion and the role of restorative justice in capital sentencing. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703252408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ask, K., & Landstrom, S. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law Human Behavior, 34, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, R. (2010). Documentation, documentary, and the law: What should be made of victim impact videos? Cardozo Law Review, 31, 979–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 361–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A. (1999). Reply to Paul Cassell: What we know about victim impact statements. Utah Law Review, 2, 545–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A. (2009). Victims, “closure,” and the sociology of emotion. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A., & Blumenthal, J. A. (2012). Emotion and the law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1146/anurev-lawosci-102811-173825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, E. P., Messner, S. F., & Felson, R. B. (2000). The role of victim characteristics in the disposition of murder cases. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000096331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blume, J. H. (2003). Ten years of Payne: Victim impact evidence in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 257–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, J. A. (2001). The admissibility of victim impact statements at capital sentencing: Traditional and nontraditional perspectives. Drake Law Review, 50, 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, J. A. (2009). Affective forecasting and capital sentencing: Reducing the effect of victim impact statements. American Criminal Law Review, 46, 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth v Maryland. 482 U.S. 496. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boppre, B., & Miller, M. K. (2014). How victim and execution impact statements affect jurors’ perceptions, emotions, and verdicts. Victims and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, 9, 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.845124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, T. W. (2004). Race and jurors’ receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors’, defendants’, and victims’ race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046432.41928.2b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, R. (2003). Litigating with victim impact testimony: The serendipity that has come from Payne v. Tennessee. Cornell Law Review, 88, 517–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, B. (2008). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ susceptibility to victim impact statements. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1492, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701483534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014640025871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, P. G. (2009). In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 611–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover v. State 933 P. 2d. 1074, 1085–1086 (Okla Crim. App. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanzo, S., & Costanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision-making under the special issues framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crime Victim’s Rights Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, T. R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, L. (2011). The elusive right to cross-examine individuals presenting victim impact statements in Arizona capital sentencing proceedings. Arizona State Law Journal, 43, 563–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. E. (1994). Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction: An unfulfilled promise? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90044-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Death Penalty Information Center (2017). .Legal issues: States that allow victim impact statements. Retrieved from www.deathpenalty.org/legalissues.

  • Deise, J., & Paternoster, R. (2013). More than a “quick glimpse of the life”: The relationship between victim impact evidence and death sentencing. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 40(3), 611–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10(3/4), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorland, M., & Krauss, D. (2005). The danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law & Psychology Review, 29, 63–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, M. G. (1994). In slime and darkness: The metaphor of filth in criminal justice. Tulane Law Review, 68, 725–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (2003). Symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom: Victim characteristics and victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 306–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englebrecht, C. M., & Chavez, J. M. (2014). Whose statement is it? An examination of victim impact statements delivered in court. Victims & Offenders, 9(4), 386–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.838615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. (1999). Who’s afraid of the big bad victim? Victim impact statements as victim empowerment and enhancement of justice. Criminal Law Review, 1, 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N., & Park, J. (2006). Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flamm, J. D. (1999). Due process on the “unchartered seas of irrelevance”: Limiting the presence of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing after Payne v. Tennessee. Washington & Lee Law Review, 56, 295–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forsterlee, L., Fox, G. B., Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime? Australian Psychologist, 39(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005006041000166035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, J. (2008). Payne, victim impact statements, and nearly two decades of devolving standards of decency. New York City Law Review, 12, 87–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S., 349 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–1576. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. P., Johnson, S., & Marcus, P. (2000). Correcting deadly confusion: Responding to jury inquiries in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 85, 627–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georges, L. C., Wiener, R. L., & Keller, S. R. (2013). The angry juror: Sentencing decisions in 1st degree murder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199908/09)29:5/6<781::AID-EJSP960>3.0.CO;2-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of victim impact statements on sentencing in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v07n02_03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, L., Day, A., & Mohr, P. (2008). Expectancy violation and perceptions of rape victim credibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X228458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. J. (1991). Victims’ voices in criminal court: The need for restraint. American Criminal Law Review, 38, 233–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1447–1486. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). “Modern” death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Weill, J., & Lynch, M. (2015). The death penalty. In B. L. Cutler & P. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology, Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (Vol. 2, pp. 451–510). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, A. N. (2010). Drawing the line at pushing “play”: Barring video montages as victim impact evidence at capital sentencing trials. Kentucky Law Journal, 99, 845–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. N. (1985). The wrongs of victim’s rights. Stanford Law Review, 37, 937–985. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S., Barlow, M., Mitchell, K., Broszkiewicz, N., & Myers, B., et al. Eliciting empathy in capital jurors: The effect of victim impact statements. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society (Div 41), New Orleans, LA, March 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillenbrand, S. W., & Smith, B. E. (1989). Victims rights legislation: An assessment of its impact on criminal justice practitioners and victims. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Victim Witness Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, A. M., & Thomson, D. M. (1999). Should victim impact influence sentence? Understanding the community’s justice reasoning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199923)17:5<661::AID-BSL369>3.0.CO;2-N

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joh, E. E. (2000). Narrating the pain: The problem with victim impact statements. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 10, 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Thorpe, K., Prichard, K., Phillips, D., Moore, A., et al. (2016). Public attitudes toward victim impact statements in capital cases: Individual differences and the willingness to hear the victim’s perspective. Atlanta, GA, March: Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 415–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. B., & Weiner, R. L. (2011). Effects of mortality salience in capital punishment sentencing decisions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.568852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judges, D. P. P. (1999). Scared to death: Capital punishment as authoritarian terror management. University of California Davis Law Review, 33, 155–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and non-evidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 25–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. M. (2008). Victim impact videos: The new wave of evidence in capital sentencing hearings. Quinnipiac Law Review, 26, 1069–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerwin, J., & Schaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294202002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, D. G., & Otto, R. K. (1987). Constitutionally guaranteed participation in criminal justice proceedings for victims: Potential effects of psychological functioning. Wayne State Law Review, 34, 7–28. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr34&id=17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchmeier, J. L. (2008). Our existential death penalty: Judges, jurors, and terror management. Law and Psychology Review, 32, 55–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyle, J., Twist, S. J., & Higgins, S. (2005). On the wings of their angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, Nila Lyn Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9, 581–611. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lewclr9&g_sent=1&id=601

    Google Scholar 

  • Lens, K. M. E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2013) Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a Victim Impact Statement. European Journal of Criminology 10 (4), 479–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lens, K. M. E., van Doorn, J., Lahlah, E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2016). Observer’s reactions to victim impact statements: A preliminary study into the affective and cognitive responses. International Review of Victimology, 22(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758015610851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. H. (1993). Limiting victim impact evidence and argument after Payne v. Tennessee. Stanford Law Review, 45, 1027–1060. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S., 586 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, W. A. (1999). Through the past darkly: A survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, W. A. (2000). Opining on death: Witness sentence recommendations in capital trials. Boston College Law Review, 41, 517–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, W. A. (2005). Victims, survivors and the decisions to seek and impose death. William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 235. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=715021.

  • Logan, W. A. (2006). Victim impact evidence in federal capital trials. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(5), 05. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2006.19.1.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, K., & Nightingale, N. N. The impact of inadmissible evidence on jury deliberations. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, S.C, March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, K., & Nuñez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2012). Looking across the empathic divide: Radicalized decision making on the capital jury. Michigan State Law Review, 2011, 573–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, M. L., Nuñez, N., & Dammeyer, M. M. (1999). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ reasoning skills. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022348229558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, M. G., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.3.357.65763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Minot, D. (2012). Silenced stories: How victim impact evidence in capital trials prevents the jury from hearing the constitutionally required story of the defendant. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 227–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, K., Myers, B., & Broszkiewicz, N. (2016). Good or essential? The effects of victim characteristics and family significance on sentencing judgments and perceptions of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23, 651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, R. P. (2003). Symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom: Victim impact evidence: Hard to find the real rules. Cornell Law Review, 88, 543–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, C. L. (1995). Sentencing criminals. Missouri Law Review, 60, 731–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29(3/4), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v29n03_05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Godwin, D., Latter, R., & Winstanley, S. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22(2), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2393–2412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Nuñez, N., Mitchell, K., Kehn, A., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2017). The heterogeneity of victim impact statements: A content analysis of capital trial penalty transcripts. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Roop, A., Kalnen, D., & Kehn, A. (2013). Victim impact statements and crime heinousness: a test of the saturation hypothesis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.614244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Weidemann, E., & Pearce, G. (2006). Psychology weighs in on the debate surrounding victim impact statements and capital sentencing: Are emotional jurors really irrational? Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2006.19.1.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2003). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419–456. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.377521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. (2012). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97(2), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. (1973). A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 90(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9712562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Jersey v. Muhummad.145 N.J. 23, 54 [678 A. 2d 164, 180] (N.J. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez, N, Egan-Wright, D., Kehn, A., & Myers, B. Impact of different methods of victims impact statement delivery at capital trials: Emotionality of statements and its impact on sentencing decisions. Talk presented at the 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law, Miami, FL, March 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez, N., Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K., & Myers, B. (2016). The impact of emotions on juror judgments and decision-making. In B. H. Bornstein & M. Miller (Eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law (Vol. 2, pp. 346–385).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez, N., Myers, B., Wilkowski, B. M., & Schweitzer, K. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(6), 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuñez, N., Schweitzer, K., Chai, C. A., & Myers, B. (2015). Negative emotions felt during trial: The effect of fear, anger, and sadness on juror decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogul, M. (2000). Capital cases: Dealing with victim impact evidence (part 1). Champions, 24, 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact statements on capital decision making. Criminology, 49(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne v. Tennessee. 501 U.S. 808. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Kelly, 171 P.3d 548, (Cal. 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. K. (1998). Thou shalt not kill any nice people: The problem of victim impact statements in capital sentencing. American Criminal Law Review, 35, 93–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platania, J., & Berman, G. (2006). The moderating effect of judge’s instructions on victim impact testimony in capital cases. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(2), 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime. (1982). Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2009). Listening to the crime victim: Evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. Crime and Justice, 38, 347–403. https://doi.org/10.1086/599203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. R., Nadler, J., & Clark, J. (2006). Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of crime victims. Law Human Behavior, 30, 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9030-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar v. State, 90 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderford, D. (2012). Victim impact evidence, state by state. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legal-issues-states-allow-victim-impact-statements.

  • Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (2008). Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(5), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, E. A. (2010). Comment: Sounds of prejudice: Background music during victim impact statements. Kansas Law Review, 58, 473–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2017). Victim impact statements: How victim social class affects juror decision-making. Violence and Victims, Online First., 32, 521. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelye, K. Q. (2015, March 30). Prosecution in Boston Marathon trial closes with raw details of killings. The New York Times, A-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanker, N. (1999). Getting a grip on Payne and restricting the influence of victim impact statements in capital sentencing: The Timothy McVeigh Case and various state approaches compared. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 26, 711–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaunessy, J. M. (1992). Booth v. Maryland, insights into the contemporary challenges to judging. Washington & Lee Law Review, 49, 249–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina v. Gathers. 490 U.S. 805. 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B. E. (1998). Harnessing Payne: Controlling the admission of victim impact statements to safeguard capital sentencing hearings from passion and prejudice. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 25, 601–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundby, S. E. (2003). Inside and outside the courtroom: The capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Cornell Law Review, 88, 343–381. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.358521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoudis, O., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1998). How bad was it? The effects of victim and perpetrator emotion on responses to criminal court vignettes. Social Forces, 77(2), 695–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Roberts, J. V. (2005). Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes toward capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166, 192-93 (D. Mass. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.13072/midss.438

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weidemann, E. J. (2008). Victim impact statements: The role of expectations in juror judgments. Wilmington, NC: Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., & Clark, J. W. (2014). Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514527170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., Bornstein, B. H., & Voss, A. (2006). Emotion and the law: A framework for inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9025-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williham v. State, 947 P.2d 1074, 1085-1086 (Okla Crim. App. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 345–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, K. T., & Miller, M. K. (2009). Victim and execution impact statements: What judges know about case and psychological research. Judicature, 92, 148–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Younglove, J. A., Nelligan, P. J., & Reisner, R. L. (2009). Victim character evidence in death penalty cases: How many songs is too many? Criminal Justice Review, 34, 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809338559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zant v. Stevens. (1983). 462 U.S. In 862.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

    Bryan Myers & Sarah Johnson

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    Narina Nuñez

Authors
  1. Bryan Myers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Narina Nuñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan Myers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

    Monica K. Miller

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Myers, B., Johnson, S., Nuñez, N. (2018). Victim Impact Statements in Capital Sentencing: 25 Years Post-Payne . In: Miller, M., Bornstein, B. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation