Community-Based Sentencing: The Perspectives of Crime Victims

2. Methodology


2. Methodology

2.1 Sources of Information

The goal of the present research therefore was to explore the experiences and perceptions of crime victims in cases in which a community based sentence had been imposed. This generally means either a conditional sentence of imprisonment or a probation order. We addressed a limited number of research questions, by means of in-depth interviews with individual or small group discussions. The questions pertained to victims' experiences and perceptions regarding community sentencing. Specifically, we were interested in their perceptions of:

We were also interested in the level of information that they had acquired about the sentencing process, and the role of the victim. Most members of the public subscribe to a number of myths about the criminal process. For example, many people believe that the Crown "represents" the victim, in the same way that defence counsel represent accused persons (Roberts, 2002). Since victims enter the criminal justice system with the same level of knowledge of the justice system as members of the public, they may well hold the same misperceptions. Unless these misperceptions are dispelled, victims may well react negatively to the experience of appearing as a complainant/witness [1]. In addition, research on victims in other jurisdictions has shown that victims sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the sentencing court, and when these expectations are unfulfilled, evaluations of the justice system (and of judges) become more negative.

In writing this report we have drawn upon the following sources of information:

The research aimed to explore victims' reactions to community sentences, but as will be seen, other issues arose during the discussions. The limited resources and time scale of the study precluded a quantitative analysis based upon a representative sample of victims. Instead, we pursued the research questions with a small number of victims. By drawing upon different sources of participants we hoped to assemble a diverse sample of crime victims. During the course of the discussions/interviews, we sought reactions that were common to a number of individuals. Clearly, we cannot generalize the findings from this group of victims to all crime victims, all victims in which a community sanction was imposed or even all victims in violent offences resulting in a community sentence. Nevertheless, we have confidence that we have learned lessons about victims' reactions to the issue that apply to more than simply the individuals interviewed for this study.

2.2 Victim Focus Groups/Interviews

All the victims in this research were female victims of a personal injury offence. Eighty percent of the participants were involved in a case resulting in the imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment; in the remaining cases a term of probation had been imposed. The crimes represented a wide range of offending, including sexual assault simpliciter, and assault causing bodily harm. In the most serious cases the victims had sustained very serious, irreversible injuries. In order to protect their privacy, crime victims were contacted initially by VWAP personnel [3], and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. If they responded affirmatively, they were sent a letter containing a complete description of the study's scope and aims. Victims were subsequently contacted by one of the researchers, and a mutually convenient time was arranged for the two group discussions. In Ottawa, the sessions were attended by the principal researcher, a rapporteur, and a representative from the Victim/Witness Assistance Program. We thus constructed a purposive sample of victims that was clearly diverse with respect to the nature and seriousness of the offences.

In Toronto, victims were interviewed individually with a representative from the Victim/Witness Assistance Program present. All victims [4] were informed of their right to see a copy of the research report once it was available, and were encouraged to contact VWAP, the researchers or the Research Division of the Department of Justice Canada if they had any further questions about the study. Consistent with standard ethical guidelines, participants were guaranteed anonymity, and had the right to withdraw from the study at any point. Participants were informed in the letter, and reminded in the discussions or interviews, that the research project was not in any way related to the judicial proceedings in which they had been involved. As noted, a number of victims were unable to attend the group session; the principal researcher interviewed these participants individually.

2.3 Interviews with Crown Counsel and Victims' Advocates

In addition to the discussions and interviews with crime victims, interviews were conducted with a small number of Crown Counsel and Victims Advocates [5]. Prosecutors play a critical role in the sentencing process, and act as a bridge between the court and the crime victim, without losing sight of their role to act on behalf of the state. The interviews were conducted in person or by telephone, with the same conditions of anonymity adopted for the interviews with crime victims. The intention was not to create a representative sample of prosecutors, but rather to explore the experience and opinions of certain individuals with particular experience relating to crime victims [6].