Community-Based Sentencing: The Perspectives of Crime Victims

3. Victims and Community Sanctions: Findings from Previous Research

3. Victims and Community Sanctions: Findings from Previous Research

Although there has been a great deal of research into the place of the victim in the criminal process in Canada (e.g., Roach, 1999; Young, 2001), as well as specific victim-related initiatives such as Victim Impact Statements (e.g., Meredith, 2001; Roberts, 2003), very little research has explored victims' general reactions to community-based penalties. It is an important oversight, in light of the increased interest restorative justice (see Roach, 2000; Roberts and Roach, 2003). Restorative initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the justice process, but particularly at the stage of sentencing. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada have also stressed the importance of both community-based sentencing and the importance of the victim (Roach, 2000).

The few studies on victim responses to community sanctions are quite old, and of rather limited relevance today. For example, Hudson and Galaway's (1980) volume contains chapters exploring victim perspectives on restitution, but these contributions were written during a period in which Victim Impact Statements had yet to be introduced, and when the expansion of community-based sentencing had yet to take place [1]. The only study that directly explored victims' reactions to community sentencing is an exploratory study conducted 25 years ago and reported by Henderson and Gitchoff (1983). The researchers conducted interviews with a small number of victims [2].

Henderson and Gitchoff report that victims knew little about alternatives to incarceration: "It was apparent that the victims were unaware of the costs of incarceration, were unaware of community service as a sentencing option, and seldom considered restitution as a part of sentencing because they were uniformed of its availability" (1983, p. 49). Of course, much has changed in 25 years, and it is likely that victims today are provided with more information about the range of penalties available [3]. These researchers also found that victims initially voiced a desire that the offender be committed to prison, but that their views changed after having been provided with information about the alternative sanctions available to a court. Henderson and Gitchoff concluded that: "we found that victims were quite willing to move away from a position of retribution if given viable alternatives" (p. 49). More recent scholarship supports this finding. For example, Erez (1994) concluded that: "The ‘retributive’ element in some victims preferences for certain sentencing outcomes may result from lack of knowledge about alternative dispositions" (p. 21).

The limited Canadian research in this area suggests that victims are often dissatisfied with sentencing outcomes, but once again it is unclear whether this reflects unrealistic expectations about sentencing outcomes. This finding emerges from the landmark research conducted by John Hagan a generation ago. Hagan (1983) found that almost two thirds of crime victims perceived the dispositions imposed in their case to be too lenient. It must be recalled however, that this study was also conducted before the introduction of victim impact statements. The introduction of this reform may have attenuated victim dissatisfaction; research has demonstrated that victims are more positive about the outcome of the hearing if they have had some input into the process (see Young, 2001).

There are two principal sources of information about victims' reactions to community sentencing: in-depth studies of victims who have passed through the criminal process, and large-scale victimization studies (e.g., Hough and Moxon, 1985; Hough and Roberts, 1998; Tufts, 2000; Tufts and Roberts, 2002). In studies of "official" victims (i.e., those in the system), interviews are usually conducted with victims after the sentencing hearing. In the victimization studies, respondents are asked about the penalties that they believe would be appropriate. These studies include the responses of victims who have not participated in the criminal justice system, often because they did not report the incident to the police.

If victims are dissatisfied with the severity of sentences imposed, differences should emerge between their sentencing preferences and those of the general public. The general finding from a series of studies in several countries (including Canada) is that victims' sentencing preferences do not differ significantly from those obtained from non-victims (e.g., Hough and Moxon, 1985; Brillon, 1988; Hough and Roberts, 1998; van Dijk and Steinmetz, 1988). For example, Sprott and Doob (1997) draw upon the 1993 General Social Survey in Canada and found that "victims of violence were not more punitive than were victims of property crimes or non-victims" (p. 285).

The most recent exploration of this issue drew upon the General Social Survey (GSS) in Canada. Tufts (2000) compared the sentencing preferences of victims and non-victims. She found no differences between the reactions of victims and non-victims with respect to the sentencing of first offenders [4]. In fact, when asked to evaluate the criminal courts, victims and non-victims respond in a similar fashion, as can be seen in the following Table 1.

Table 1: Perceptions of the Criminal Courts in Canada: Percentage of Respondents Rating the Criminal Courts at Doing a Good Job
  Victims of Violent Crime Victims of non-violent crime Non-Victims
Ensuring a fair trial for the accused 40% 41% 40%
Determining whether the accused is guilty 21% 20% 21%
Helping the victim 15% 13% 16%
Providing justice quickly 11% 10% 14%

Source: Adapted from Tufts (2000).

These findings are important because they suggest that as a group, victims are not likely to be more opposed or receptive to community sentences than members of the public. Moreover, victims' sentencing preferences are generally close to the sentences imposed by courts. The principal difference between victims and the general public in terms of sentencing appears to concern reparation: not surprisingly, crime victims assign more importance to reparation.

When crime victims are asked to select an appropriate sentence for the offender in their case, they often choose community-based sanctions. A typical example of such a study was reported by Lutz, Fahrney, Crew and Moriarty (1998), who analysed responses to a state-wide survey of several categories crime victims in Iowa [5]. When asked to identify an appropriate disposition, victims of all kinds of crimes advocated treatment for their offender. Of all assault victims, only one-quarter favoured incarcerating the offender. The percentage of sexual assault victims favouring the incarceration of the offender was higher; however, 40% of these victims still endorsed a community-based sentence rather than custody (Lutz et al. (1998)). Lutz et al. concluded that: "The comparatively large percentage of respondents selecting alternative sentences to prison….suggests Iowans want more from their criminal justice system than only incarceration of offenders" (1998, p. 53).

3.1 Perceptions of Severity

Although few studies have addressed the issue, the argument is often advanced that if victims perceive the sentence imposed as being too lenient (in light of the seriousness of the offence), they be dissatisfied with the sentencing process. This may promote their suffering and result in alienation from the justice system. There is in fact empirical support for this proposition from a careful study of crime victims' reactions to the criminal process. Tontodonato and Erez (1994) explored the effects of the justice system on the distress levels of crime victims. These researchers explored the impact of a number of variables on distress levels, including the nature of the offence, demographic variables such as sex and age, and victims' perceptions of the severity of the sentence eventually imposed.

Tontodanoto and Erez (1994) found that victims' perceptions of the adequacy of the sentence exercised an important influence over their reactions to victimization. The researchers concluded that: "Sentence leniency, or what is perceived as a light sentence colors the way the victim recalls his or her reaction to the victimization and further contributes to feelings of distress associated with the experience. A sentence of sufficient severity, on the other hand, may give the victim the feeling that 'justice has been done'" (p. 50).

Of course, whether a given disposition is "sufficient" is a subjective judgment; the same sentence will be judged differently by different victims. However, to a degree reactions to sentencing will be determined by expectations; if victims expect most offenders to be imprisoned, and for durations in excess of a year, they may feel that a 44-day term of custody is too lenient. If victims are aware that most sentences imposed in Canada do not involve custody, and that the median sentence of custody is 44 days [6], they may evaluate the same 30-day sentence in a different light. For this reason alone it is vital that crime victims hold realistic expectations of the sentencing process.

3.2 Summary

The following points emerge from the literature: