Victim Impact Statement And Case Analysis

In the case of Booth versus Maryland, the case favored victims’ rights over offender rights. According to the Eighth Amendment, the offender's constitutional rights were violated due to the jury being allowed to read the victim impact statement during the sentencing process of the trial. This additional, unrelated information allowed the jury to visualize how the crime impacted the victim's family. In this case, the state had introduced prejudicial and inflammatory documentation which provoked the jury to force unbelievable severe punishment. However, the presenting of the victim's statement during the sentencing process impacted the jury's decision. Under the Eighth Amendment, The Supreme Court decided that states cannot grant juries the opportunity

Defendant Hankins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on appeal after pleading guilty to felony charges because he argued a Kansas trial court wrongfully considered a deferred judgment from Oklahoma in his sentencing calculation. The State argued that Kansas law required such deferred judgments from other states to be included in sentencing determinations. The Supreme Court of Kansas disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Hankins’ motion, finding that there was a discrepancy between Kansas and Oklahoma’s statutory standards for an entry of a judgment of guilt. Under Kansas law, the Court concluded, a conviction requires a judgment of guilt. However, under Oklahoma law, “an entry of judgment will not be entered for an offender who successfully completes a deferred judgment. The initial conditions are to be imposed ‘without entering a judgment of guilt.’” Therefore, the Court found that no

Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989), that victim impact evidence according to the Eight Amendment is inadmissible during the penalty phase of a capital trial. Both cases were granted certiorari, 498 U.S. in 1991. After hearing the facts to the case and several testimonies’, the jury sentenced Payne to death on each of the murder counts. During the closing arguments, the court determined that the prosecutor’s comments were “relevant” to Payne’s personal responsibility and moral guilt. Booth and Gathers based their premises that evidence of “blameworthiness” is relevant in Capital sentencing opposed to the harm that is cause to the victim’s family. Furthermore, Booth held that if the defendants’ character or circumstances were directly related to the crime, then and only then should victim impact evidence be considered. Booth furthered his argument by stating that victim impact evidence imposed risks of Capital punishments if the victim impact evidence is not related in part to the character, or crime of the individual it is being imposed

“Many factors go into a sentence and I need to consider them all,” Judge McNamara said. “I need to value the victim impact statement, the need to protect others, the defendant’s character, and other factors.”

"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.

The courts stated juries were allotted too much power in sentencing, hence prompting the racial bias that dismounted in not only the Furman v Georgia case, but a multitudinous amount of cases in the south. In a 5-4 decision, it was concluded that the implementation of Furman’s sentencing was cruel and unusual. Two justices concluded the death penalty was unconstitutional, while three stated that the method in which the sentencing was being utilized, made it unconstitutional. Justice Douglas also observed that not only were death penalties given to the poor, uneducated, and sick minorities, but that they had been taking place due to miscommunication and lack of guidance and understanding of the law, which furthermore concluded in the use of preconceived notions and prejudices that guided the jurors in

Luckily even Det.Delko/CSI, who spent the most time exposed to the victim as he examined the cash that was found. Victim #1 was caring a backpack belonging to Belle King/Victim #2, a environmental lawsuits specialist, who was contaiminated with the radiation, which is terminal. Victim #2 had numerous enemies that include George Risher's Isotopes Firm, who VICTIM #2 currently has filed a lawsuit against. However, things became more complicated than they seem.

Victim impact statements (VIS) are written or oral statements that are given by crime victims, or their family members, during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. The statements provide information about the impact of the crime on the victim, their family, and the community. Victim impact statements have been developed as a way to give victims a voice in the criminal justice system and to ensure that their experiences and perspectives are considered in sentencing decisions. Supporters argue that victim impact statements help to provide a more complete picture of the impact of the crime and can help to hold offenders accountable for their actions and play a crucial role in criminal proceedings, allowing victims and their families to express

Discuss factors that affect sentencing decisions, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victim

Miscarriage of justice is reflected in various states across the nation, where there are far too many occurrences where individuals have been convicted of crimes and subjected to unfair mandatory sentencing. “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes” (Famm, n.d.). “Mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute are intended to achieve consistency in sentencing at the expense of individual consideration of the contextual sentencing factors” (Harvard Law Review, 2011). “These inflexible, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offense” (Famm, n.d) “Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers, and diversion of funds from law enforcement” (Famm, n.d.)

According to Siegel, Larry, Schmalleger, Frank, and Worrall, John (2014). "Victims have been granted two types of rights by various laws and statutes: 1. Victim's voice laws. It has become common to give victims the right to make a statement at an offender's sentencing or parole hearing. These statements, known as victim impact statements, either are made orally before the trial judge or parole board or are provided in writing. Written statements are sometimes preferred because an actual appearance may be traumatic for the victim".(pg. 271). Then you have 2. Victim's notification and participation according also to Siegel, Larry, Schmalleger, Frank, and Worrall, John (2014). " Laws also provide victims the right to be notified of the status

The victim impact statement from the five case are different from each other. Most of the Victim Impact Statement, the victim had similar response of disbelief, shock, and numb feeling. The tears of the victim are from the effect of sorrow, anger and frustration they felt. Every single victim could not believe what has happened to them or their loved ones. Dennis Shepard, the father of Matthew, talk about how much the grief cause Matthew’s grandfather to pass away. The response to the crime against them, most victim at first have the same reaction as time pass their feeling change or remain the same.

This assignment will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the positive approach to victimology. It will do this by looking at other victimology approaches such as; Radical, feminist, and critical victimology. Analysing the different theories within each approach, to highlight the negatives and positives within the positivist approach to victimology.

One of the first times I ever went to a hospital was when I had to have a medical examination done to support sexual assault allegations. I was 12, and I elected not to have my mother with me for fear that she could not emotionally handle what was about to happen. Although I was lucky to have compassionate physicians, I still remember the loneliness that I felt and that I would continue to feel after that appointment. I was fortunate enough to be able to receive free therapy throughout my high school years, and that is something that has never been lost on me. Because of this, I have a personal passion for supporting sexual assault victims in whatever way I can. Throughout my high school years, I spoke at various engagement to fundraise for

From the beginning of time there have always been crimes against persons. People went by the saying “An eye for an eye”. You stole from your neighbor, they stole from you. You hurt someone, they hurt you. It wasn’t until the 1940’s people started taking a closer look into these crimes against person, which they later called victimology. This paper will look into victimology and their theories as we go back into the past and how victimology is now.