Emotions in the courtroom: research into the impact of victim impact statements on judges
In court, victims of violent crime and sexual offences are permitted to comment on the defendant’s guilt and the sentence to be imposed. But legal experts believe this allows them to influence the judge. Lecturer Joyce Schot has received a Meijers PhD grant to investigate whether the right to speak actually affects court decisions.
Victim impact statements can attract a huge amount of media attention due to the emotions involved. Some have been particularly memorable, emotional accounts, such as the public statements made by relatives in the MH17 trial and the Nicky Verstappen rape and murder case.
From an academic perspective, Schot finds these kinds of statements fascinating due to her studies and her research internship at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. During her internship, she studied the impact of the right to speak on victims’ emotional recovery and wrote her graduation thesis on the same topic.
Little knowledge about right to speak
The introduction of the right to speak gave victims a voice in criminal proceedings. Research had shown that victims wanted to be seen and heard by the judge, and the right to speak met that need. ‘That was great, of course,’ says Schot. ‘But hardly any research had been conducted into the potential impact on criminal proceedings and court decisions. It had only been researched in the US.’
Gradually, Schot gained a clearer impression of the judge’s and the defendant’s perspective. She explains: ‘It made me wonder: How would hearing deeply emotional impact statements affect the judge? I was curious about that. We already knew how the right to speak affects the victim, but we knew relatively little about the impact on court decisions.’
Meijers research grant
Joyce Schot has been awarded a Meijers grant to fund her PhD research into the impact of victim impact statements on judges and rulings. This offers a great opportunity to explore the question of whether victim statements can influence decisions concerning guilt and sentencing, and if so, how and to what extent. It’s important to explore these questions from a criminal law perspective. After all, it would be inappropriate for decisions on sentencing and guilt to depend on what the victim has to say.
Research strategy
Schot’s study will involve a combination of three different research methods. She will interview judges, examine records of criminal cases and conduct practical experiments. She predicts that the findings of her study could enhance the quality and awareness of any unintended effects. She also plans to share her findings with legal scholars and during workshops for prosecutors and judges.
Applying the results
Schot hopes that the findings of her research will be incorporated into training courses for judges and be discussed in workshops and periodic professional training. Policy and legislation changes may also be considered. Schot adds: ‘We could think about changing the timing of the right to speak, for example – so that this right is only exercised after the defendant has been found guilty.’
2024 Meijers grant winners
This year, Leiden Law School offered two Meijers PhD positions to talented researchers. Joyce Schot, affiliated with the Department of Criminology, was awarded the grant as a participant in the Pre-PhD Programme (PPP). Her supervisors are Professor Maarten Kunst and Professor Jan De Keijser. The title of her research proposal is ‘Victim personal statements: investigating their impact on judges’ decisions about guilt and sentencing’. She will start her PhD research in Februari 2025.
The second position was open to candidates both within and outside of Leiden University. It was awarded to Joni Oyserman.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to create positions through matching, as was the case in previous years, given the current challenges that the faculty is facing as a whole.
This year’s jury comprised Katrien Klep (Chair), Philippe van Gruisen, Marloes van Noorloos, Hans-Martien ten Napel and Tim Lubbers.
The jury was very impressed by the quality of the research proposals submitted by the candidates. Katrien Klep: ‘The proposals were very different in terms of content, and they were also very diverse from a methodology perspective. This shows that the next generation of researchers is exploring the legal questions that need to be asked in light of the developments of our time and is addressing those questions in innovative ways. Partly as a result of this, the interviews enabled very interesting exchanges of ideas, with candidates showing a high level of academic curiosity.’
Jan-Willem Oomen