EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF VICTIMS WHEN DELIVERING A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT Dissertation by Lien THIJS at the final examination for the degree of Master in and

Supervisor: Drs. K. Lens

2012-2013

procedure. The victims of stalking are also mentioning these goals, but are also Expectations and experiences concerned with the professional help of victims when delivering a (treatment) of the perpetrator. The reason not Victim Impact Statement to speak in court was the same for the three groups, namely because it is too emotional. Lien THIJS It became clear that all victims did not really know what to expect about the practical

things and procedure of the VIS. When Abstract presenting the results about the experiences, I can start by saying that all victim groups Lately, a lot of emphasis has been put on the are in generally positive about the rights of victims and the victim impact professional help they got from Victim statement (further: VIS). This article Support the Netherlands. About the presents the results of an analysis of 24 treatment of the VIS in court, the victims interviews with victims who have delivered have less consistent opinions. The victims of a VIS. The purpose is to examine the sexual think that the treatment and expectations and experiences of these influence during trial of the VIS was good. victim-groups and compare them with each The victims of manslaughter have very other. It seemed interesting to examine the different opinions about this. One victim differences between distinct victim-groups thinks there was enough attention given to and to find out more about the ideas and the VIS and that the VIS was taken into shortcomings of the VIS with these victims. account during the motivation. Other victims The two sub research questions and the are stating the opposite; they think the VIS results are structured according to the didn’t get enough attention during trial or following two concepts; expectations and had no influence at all. The victims of experiences. The results of the expectations stalking think the VIS got too less attention show that the victims of sexual crimes and and had too less influence during trial. The manslaughter think that the information results about emotional recovery are transfer to the judge/offender and the showing that the victims of sexual crimes punishment of the offender are the most and stalking are positive about the emotional important goals/motivations of the VIS-

1 recovery after delivering a VIS. The victims play an important role in the criminal of manslaughter have also here less process. Earlier, the offense was a conflict consistent opinions. One victim is positive between the government and the perpetrator about the emotional recovery after delivering and public law was used to solve this the VIS because he felt strengthened. The conflict (Groenhuijsen, 2008). In public law, other victims think the VIS did not have any there was no room for victims and their benefit at all for their emotional recovery. emotional and financial losses. According to This study has shown that the various victim lawyers, these emotional and financial groups agree on certain issues, but they concerns belong to civil law (Groenhuijsen, disagree on other issues. I can state that there 2008). One could say that this idea is is a kind of "heterogeneity" between the disturbed by the introduction of more victim victims in terms of their expectations and rights during trial (e.g., Victim Impact experiences with the VIS. Statement). This statement is not yet available in all countries, and they are not all Introduction in the same stage of development. For The rights of victims in criminal proceedings example, in the Netherlands, you have a are currently seen as a hot topic. But this has good developed system of the victim impact not always been the case. Groenhuijsen statement (with legal ground). In the United (2008) argues that one would expect that States, not only the victim impact statement victims of a criminal offense would always is used, they also have the victim statement be an important concern. This statement is of opinion. The VIS is rooted in a larger not true, at least not until a while ago. trend towards more victim rights and Groenhuijsen (2008) is mentioning the year legislation (e.g., Declaration of Basic 1985 as some kind of “turning point”, in Principles of Justice for Victims of which two important instruments for and Abuse of Power2, the EU-Directive for victim’s rights were adopted.1 It’s a recent victims of crime3). The victim impact phenomenon that victims themselves can

2 1 ‘Recommendation (1985) II on the Position of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power 29 November 1985, New York, Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and A/RES/40/34 Procedure’, adopted on 28 June 1985 by the CoE; and 3 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the ‘Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’, GA Res. standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of 40/34 adopted on 29 November 1985 by General crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision Assembly of the United Nations. 2001/220/JHA, Official Journal L315, 14/11/2012, p.57-73

2 statement is introduced in the Netherlands in experiences of the VIS. These expectations 2005 by the Act Introduction Right to and experiences are questioned during Speak.4 This right allows the victims to interviews in an earlier research of Lens, speak at a public hearing about the impact of Pemberton and Groenhuijsen (2010). It the crime. In 2004, the written variant was seemed interesting to me to examine the already introduced (written victim opinions about the VIS in combination with statement) (Leferink & Vos, 2008). With a comparison between different victim this written statement, victims can write groups based on their expectations and down the consequences of the crime and this experiences. It is useful to examine these will be added to their file. expectations and experiences because this can learn us and policy makers about some On the one hand, the aim of this research is shortcomings for victims when delivering a to examine the expectations of victims VIS. before having delivered a VIS, and on the other hand the experiences of those victims This thesis starts with an overview of the after having delivered a VIS. When I most important theoretical frameworks. The mention the VIS in this article, it means it first one is about the VIS in general. In this applies both to the oral statement and the part, the theoretical notions about the VIS written statement. A distinction will be made will be examined. In the second part, some between three kinds of victim groups: theories about expectations are examined victims of sexual crimes, victims of because it is important to know what the manslaughter and victims of stalking. These effects are for victims of having victim groups are chosen because sexual expectations. Previous research has already offenses and manslaughter always include a shown that expectations are very important physical element and because the maximum in the criminal justice process (e.g., Erez, sentences of these crimes are higher than 1990). In this part, attention is also given to those of stalking. Stalking includes most of the motives of participation and non- the times only an infringement of privacy. A participation of the victim impact statement. comparison will be made between these The relevance of examining differences groups based on their expectations and between different groups of victims is

foreseen in the third part. At the end of the 4 Memorie van Toelichting, Kamerstukken II 2001/02, 27 literature, a part about emotional recovery is 632, nr. 5, p. 5-6

3 foreseen. This is important to recognize the victims of manslaughter and victims of possible signs of emotional recovery during stalking? the interviews. The results in this article are - Are there any differences in experiences based on the codes of the interviews. The between victims of sexual crimes, results are divided into two sections; victims of manslaughter and victims of expectations and experiences. Each of these stalking? sections will discuss the experiences and Victim impact statement expectations of the three victim groups. A VIS is a measure to give a victim more Problem definition participatory rights in the criminal justice The goal of this thesis is to examine the procedure by giving the victim a voice. A expectations and experiences about the VIS VIS can be defined as “a statement made by of three victim-groups (sexual crimes, the victim and addressed to the judge for manslaughter, stalking). It seemed consideration in sentencing. It usually interesting to me to examine differences includes a description of the harm in terms between these groups because it can of financial, social, psychological and highlight shortcomings for certain groups of physical consequences of the crime. In some victims. These groups are chosen because jurisdictions a VIS also includes a statement sexual crimes and manslaughter are (mostly) concerning the victim's feelings about the physical crimes and have higher maximum crime, the offender and a proposed , sentences than stalking. The main research referred to as a victim statement of question in this research is the following: opinion.” (Erez, 1990, p. 8). In the “What are the expectations and experiences Netherlands, this definition is slightly of victims when delivering an oral or written different because victims can speak about Victim Impact Statement?” To answer this the consequences of the crime, but they question, an analysis of 24 interviews will be cannot argue about the proposed sentence made. The main question will be answered (Cleiren & Nijboer, 2007). In the by two sub questions: Netherlands, there is no provision of a victim statement of opinion and the rights to - Are there any differences in expectations speak as well as the written statement are between victims of sexual crimes, restricted to the consequences only (Cleiren

4

& Nijboer, 2007). In order to orientate the The right to speak in court is a European VIS, a distinction will be made between a right mentioned in article 10 of the EU- written statement and the right to speak in directive (supra). This can lead to some court. benefits for the victims. It can enhance the welfare of the victim and can lead to more In article 302 of the Code of Criminal recognition for the victim. It will serve as a Procedure5 (Wetboek van Strafvordering) source of information for the judicial the legislator has provided a legal basis for authorities and most importantly, the the right to speak in court. This article states satisfaction of the victims will be enhanced.7 that a victim or a relative can make a statement about the impact of the crimes The VIS can be summarized as the (crimes with a prison sentence of at least combination of the written statement and the eight years or the crimes mentioned in the right to speak. But it is not always necessary article).6 to make both a written statement and a verbal statement. In some countries (e.g., the A written statement is a statement that can Netherlands), those two statements are not be made by victims for telling about the related to each other, which means that a consequences of the crime. This statement victim can make a written statement without will be added to the file (Lens, Pemberton, making a verbal statement and vice versa & Groenhuijsen, 2010). This written (Vandeputte, 2011). statement can be used in two different ways. Firstly, the victim can make a written Introducing the VIS in a criminal justice statement when he doesn’t want to make a system does have several benefits and verbal victim impact statement. Secondly, objectives. In the Netherlands, three the victim can make this written statement as objectives are formulated in an annex of the a preparation for the actual verbal victim law8 that regulates the introduction of the statement (Lens et al., 2010). VIS. A first one is that the victim can provide some information to the judge. At 5 Art. 302 WSv. 6 The right to speak can be used when the crime this point, the judge knows which impact the implies a prison sentence of at least 8 years, or if the case is one of the crimes mentioned in the articles crime has on the victim and he can possibly 240b, 247, 248a, 248b, 249, 250, 250a, 285, 285b, 300, paragraph two and three, 301, paragraph two and take this into account when sentencing (Lens three, 306 until 308 and 318 of the Penal Code and article 6 of the Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) 7 Kamerstukken II 2001/02, 27 632, nr. 5, p. 5-6 and article 6 of the “Wegenverkeerswet 1994” 8 Kamerstukken II 2001/02, 27 632, nr. 5, p. 5-6

5 et al., 2010). A second one is about the Therefore, it is important to highlight prevention and it is twofold. Firstly, a sort of theories about expectations. In this part of special prevention is taking place because the article, attention will also be given to the the victim who is talking can cause a motives for participation in a VIS. decrease in the likelihood of re-offending When you are involved in a criminal justice (Lens et al., 2010). The offender will be system, it is obvious to have expectations. confronted with the victim and the You can have expectations about what is consequences of the crime for the victim. going to happen and how it will affect you as Secondly, there will be also a general a victim. Especially when something is new prevention, meaning that the introduction of and you as a victim do not know what the a VIS will enlarge the attention to victims going procedure is, expectations will be (Lens et al., 2010). Because of this created. Heeren (2008) is stating in his increasing attention, the norm and ideal of report that within the criminal justice the society is once again confirmed, and this system, the satisfaction of the victim about acts as a kind of general prevention. A third the procedure of the crime is related to the and last objective is about the emotional expectations he or she has. Erez (1990) has recovery of the victim (in line with this done research about the VIS and has found research). This objective is stating that when that when victims are making a VIS, the a victim speaks at court through a victim satisfaction level with the sentence will be impact statement, this will contribute to the increasing. This is also mentioned in another healing of the emotional harm caused by the study of her and Tontodonato (Erez & crime (Lens et al., 2010). In this research, Tontodonato, 1992), in which is stated that the sub question about experiences examines when a victim has the possibility to express whether this goal is met with the victims of a his feelings or wishes to the judge, the level crime and whether there is a difference of satisfaction with the procedural justice between different types of victims. will be increasing. But often, victims think Expectations they can influence the outcome of the trial by making this statement. When this The problem definition of this research is expectation cannot be fulfilled or the victim about the victims’ expectations before- and thinks it isn’t fulfilled, the level of experiences after having delivered a VIS. satisfaction with the criminal justice system

6 will decrease (Erez, 1990). These the criminal justice system when these expectations can be raised because of the expectations are not met. influence of victims’ movements and victim Victim’s satisfaction about the criminal advocacy. According to Fattah (as cited in process can also be influenced by (Erez & Tontodonato, 1992, p. 395)), they expectations about the treatment and are raising expectations that cannot be met. procedure of the trial. In an article of Victims are encouraged to report their Flatman and Bagaric (2001), an example is complaints and wishes to the investigating presented about victims of sexual offenses. bodies (police officers, public prosecutor) In many cases and especially in these cases, which will raise the expectation that the critical focus of the proceedings is on the everything will be handled in favor of them victims because the outcome of the case is (Erez & Tontodonato, 1992). This has the dependent on the evidence which is same consequences as mentioned above: the mentioned by the victim (Flatman & expectations of the victims will be increased Bagaric, 2001). Because of this, a victim is because of these movements; the judge often examined and questioned a lot, while ignores the victim statement or is not fully the accused just has to listen (Flatman & taken it into account; the victim may become Bagaric, 2001). The victim can have the embittered and disappointed in the criminal feeling that the focus of the trial is on him. justice system and in the procedure of the On the other hand, especially in homicide victim impact statement (Erez & cases, the focus of the trial is on the accused Tontodonato, 1992). We can even say that person in order to know as much as possible there is some kind of gap between the details. In these cases, it is possible that the expectations of the victims and outcome of victim will not get enough attention or has the criminal process. This means that the the feeling that he did not get enough expectations and the outcome of the trial attention. This will especially be the case aren’t corresponding. Elias (as cited in when the expectations of the victim about (Erez & Tontodonato, 1992, p. 395)) is the attention are high (Flatman & Bagaric, confirming this theory with an example of 2001). compensations. When victims have expectations about the amount of These negative consequences can be avoided compensation, they will be disappointed in when the relevant justice agents are not

7 creating any expectations with the victims sentence. This means that the victim would by informing about the outcome of the trial. like the VIS to have an impact on the They have to inform the victims as correctly outcome. Also in the research of Lens et al. and realistically as possible. They can (2010), the impact on the sentence seems inform them about the minimum and one of the most important reasons to deliver maximum sentences and tell about the a VIS. possible positive effects of delivering a VIS, In the same research of Lens et al. (2010), but they cannot make any assumptions about there are also two other reasons or motives what this VIS will result in (Erez, 1990). for victims for delivering a VIS. It is In an article of Ian Edwards (2001), it is important for victims to communicate with stated that victims deliver a victim impact other people about consequences of the statement because they think it will have a offense (Lens et al., 2010). They want to let positive effect on their psychological the judges and the perpetrator know which healing. For victims, an important reason to personal consequences the offense had. This deliver a victim impact statement is their is also something that is mentioned as one of personal health. This can be confirmed by the main goals of the VIS in the Netherlands, the research of Lens et al. (2010). In their namely in the “Explanatory Memorandum”. research, they found that victims often Here is stated that the provision of deliver an impact statement to cope with the information (to the judge, to the offender) is consequences of the offense (Lens et al., the first goal of the VIS.9 The second reason 2010). A remark should be made here: when to participate they are mentioning is the fact the victim has the expectation that the that the victim wants attention for his case; participation will have a positive effect (but he wants to be seen as a party in the process it doesn’t), this may have negative (Lens et al., 2010). These two reasons are consequences for the psychological healing also mentioned in a research of Leferink and of the victim (supra) (Edwards, 2001). Vos (2008) in which the respondents said that they wanted to have a voice and wanted Another reason for participation can also be to deliver information to the judge with the found in the article of Edwards (Edwards, delivery of the VIS. 2001). A victim can be motivated to participate with the goal to influence the 9 Kamerstukken II 2001/02, 27 632, nr. 5, p. 5-6

8

If there are reasons for delivering a VIS, recognitions, receiving compensation, being there must also be reasons for declining the safe and protected against new victimization, opportunity to deliver VIS. A first one is the emotional recovery. This last one will be reason for self-protection. A victim can have examined further in this thesis. It is some feelings of anger or fear and wants to important to note that these needs are protect himself for letting these emotions go applicable to most of the victims, but not to when delivering a VIS (Lens et al., 2010). all of them. They may differ depending on The victim can be afraid of facing the the type of victimization. Victims of offender. Some victims don’t want to make property offenses will have the goal to repair an impact statement before the judge the material damage that is done. For victims because they think their victimization was of domestic violence, it seems that safety is not that serious (Pemberton, 2011). Other an important goal. They want to feel safe reasons can be that the victims think the again in their domestic environment. For impact statement will have no influence or victims of more serious crime (e.g., rape, that the victims think that a written statement murder), the primary goal is to obtain or the report to the police was enough to emotional recovery. highlight the offense (Lens et al., 2010). The term emotional recovery is not easy to Differences between victims describe. Emotional recovery is also differing among groups of victims. Most The purpose of this thesis is to compare the victims of the more serious crimes are experiences and expectations of victims of having some serious traumatic problems sexual crimes, manslaughter and stalking (e.g., PTSD) (Pemberton, 2011). However, when delivering a VIS. It is possible that this is only the case for a minority of the these experiences and expectations of victims. A statement that can be made about victims can differ along the group of these traumatic feelings is that the severity victims. These expectations can have of the trauma depends on the severity of the consequences for the experiences of the crime (Pemberton, 2011, p. 24). The victims. question is whether the VIS will help them Victims of crime can have different needs in in diminishing the harm and the traumatic the criminal justice process. Pemberton feeling (Pemberton, 2005). (2008) is mentioning some of them; getting

9

There are not only differences in increasing, the likelihood that a victim will expectations and wishes of the victims. make a VIS is also increasing. Bonnano, Westphal and Mancini (2011) are Applied to this thesis, victims of severe stating that there are psychological and violent crimes (e.g., sexual offenses) should therapeutic differences between different be more likely to deliver a VIS which may groups of victims. These psychological lead to a more severe punishment. differences can result into different needs. We can speak of certain heterogeneity of the Emotional recovery victims, which can be presented as a In research done with victims of crime combination of the personal characteristics (Lamet & Wittebrood, 2009), 63% of all of the victim and the perception of victims examined aren’t having any instruments available to them. These two emotional problems because of the crime. factors will be determining whether the They are not thinking about it. 9% of all the victim will choose to use a participatory victims are saying their emotional problems right (e.g., VIS) (Lens, Pemberton, & are very serious. This is a big group of Bogaerts, 2012). victims. This study showed that violent Recent research has shown that the impact of crimes often produce emotional problems, the crime is of importance for the delivery of but also crimes like burglary and car theft a VIS. This means that when the impact of (Lamet & Wittebrood, 2009, p. 34). When the crime is high, the likelihood that the there is some financial damage and this is victim will deliver a VIS is also high (Lens less than 100 euros, it does not matter for the et al., 2012). This was already examined by emotional recovery if the damage is other researchers (e.g., Lens et al., 2010; reimbursed or not. When there is a financial Pemberton, 2010) and their findings were in damage of more than 500 euros, research has line with these conclusions (Lens et al., shown that with 18% of the victims, serious 2012). These other researchers stated that the emotional problems occur. The chance of seriousness of the crime may influence the creating emotional problems is bigger when likelihood of delivering a VIS (Lens et al., there is financial or physical damage. 2012). This means the same as what is stated When the perpetrator of the crime was a above; when the seriousness of the crime is known person for the victim and when the

10 crime was in his own neighborhood, the Firstly, it is generally known that a social chance of getting emotional problems is environment is positive for the victim to higher. The severity of the emotional process the emotional harm (Lamet & consequences is determined especially by Wittebrood, 2009). Especially having a the extent in which the perpetrator has partner is positive for this processing. infringed the privacy of the victim. The Having conversations in general is positive higher the violation of the privacy, the for the processing of victimization. higher the severity of the emotional Secondly, the consult of certain agencies consequences (Lamet & Wittebrood, 2009). (e.g., victim assistance) will help the victim process the crime more easily (Lamet & We have talked about emotional problems, Wittebrood, 2009). The number of victims but what are these problems? In this who make use of these instances is low. research, interviews were done with victims Something that is striking is that victims of of crime and they highlight some emotional certain crimes are more likely to consult problems; sleeping problems (including these instances. Victims are mostly victims headache, concentration problems, crying of sexual offenses, victims of maltreatment, and nightmares), social problems (not going threatening, burglary and car theft. Thirdly, out that much, less trust), anger or fear. the passage of time will alleviate the Emotional problems can also include suffering of emotional harm (Lamet & psychiatric problems like PTSD or Wittebrood, 2009). It frequently occurs that depression. When the anger still occurs after a victim has got emotional problems right a couple of months, the victims mostly after the crime, but after some weeks or suffer from PTSD. In extreme cases, the months, the victim will recover emotionally. victim can become suicidal (Lamet & In more serious cases, the victim can see a Wittebrood, 2009). therapist to talk about the crime. It also Now that we have discussed the emotional happens that victims get medicines for their problems, it is important to look at the way emotional suffering (e.g., antidepressants, and when these problems can disappear. The tranquillizers) (Lamet & Wittebrood, 2009). research of Lamet and Wittebrood (2009) Strang and Sherman (2003, p. 21) are saying has pointed out that some elements can that participation in the processing (like cause emotional recovery after a crime. VIS) of the cases helps victims to recover

11 emotionally and reduce the sense of Method alienation. Sample According to Strang and Sherman (2003, p. This research is about the victims’ 22), emotional recovery can only be expectations before and experiences after established for victims by an act of having delivered a VIS. The purpose is to emotional repair. With this emotional repair, make a comparison between certain groups victims think mostly of an emotional of victims (victims of sexual offenses, reconciliation instead of financial victims of manslaughter and victims of compensation/reparation. stalking) in order to know if these victims Bonanno (2004, p. 21) distinguishes four have other motivations, experiences and patterns of emotional recovery/resilience. A consequences when making a victim impact first one is chronic disruption. This type statement. These victim groups are chosen starts with severe disruptions right after the because sexual offenses and manslaughter event and they stay relatively severe always include a physical element and (Bonanno, 2004). A second one, the delayed because the maximum sentences of these disruption, starts at a relatively low level of crimes are higher than those of stalking. disruption, but it is rising after Stalking is most of the times about an approximately one year after the event infringement of privacy. That’s why I (Bonanno, 2004). The third pattern is the thought it was interesting to compare these recovery and as the word is describing, the groups of victims. The goal is to compare person will recover from moderate the groups of victims (sexual crimes, disruptions after the event to a lower level of manslaughter and stalking) on different disruption after one or two years of the event subjects. They will be compared based on (Bonanno, 2004). The last pattern is the expectations, motives, experiences and resilience and this is a pattern that stays emotional recovery in order to answer the stable. It starts with a mild level of research question. The people who are disruption after the event and it stays like representative for this study are victims of this, even after two years (Bonanno, 2004). crime who had the possibility to deliver a VIS. These victims are interviewed in an

earlier research, commissioned by the

12

WODC of the Ministry of Safety and Justice on the interviews with the victims of sexual (the Netherlands). The victims were crimes, manslaughter and stalking. recruited through the information desk for The actual number of participants in this victims with the public prosecutor offices in study depends on the interviews available. I the Netherlands used the identification numbers (no names (“slachtofferinformatiepunten van het because of privacy) of the questionnaires in Openbaar Ministerie”) (Lens et al., 2010, p. order to combine these numbers with the 20). interviews available. Because of the long The choice which decides which people in duration of a trial or willingness to the sample were recorded is based on a participate to the research, it happened that number of inclusion criteria. A first, but also some people who have filled in the the most important criteria, is that the person questionnaire have not been interviewed needs to be a victim as laid down by law (“failure”). This means that when you have (Art. 336 Code of Criminal Procedure) (Lens different phases in your research, it is et al., 2010, p. 20). Two other criteria are possible that certain respondents are not that the victim had to be at least 18 years old participating anymore (Decorte & Zaitch, and should sufficiently speak the Dutch 2010, p. 406). In this research, the data language (Lens et al., 2010, p. 20). In the available are interviews of five victims of sample used, the victims are divided into sexual offenses, three victims of three groups: people who delivered an oral manslaughter and sixteen victims of statement (this can be in combination with stalking. the written statement), people who made a In a qualitative research, often a purposive written statement and those people who sample is used. This means that a sample is declined their opportunity to deliver a VIS constructed based on some criteria the (Lens et al., 2010, p. 20). researcher has defined (Mortelmans, 2012, The research was divided into three big data p. 100). In this case, the researchers searched collection moments, being a twofold for victims who were at least 18 years old questionnaire, in-depth interviews and and speak sufficiently the Dutch language. observations of the trial (Lens et al., 2010, p. The victims were found in the nineteen 24). In this research, the focus will only be victim information desks in the Netherlands.

13

As mentioned above, in this research, only questions in an attempt to provide a more one method of data collection will be used; comprehensive answer to this question. qualitative in-depth interviews. In order to Another important part of the research is give a complete answer to the research discovering the goals and motivations of the question(s), it is necessary to get insight in victim in criminal proceedings. This first the opinions and experiences of victims part of the interview is relevant to the thesis about the victim impact statement. The because in a sub research question, the interviews used in this research were semi- motives of the various groups of victims will structured interviews. Because of that, the be compared. A second chapter in the researcher can interview the victim further interview is about the practical when making interesting observations implementation of the VIS. This is more (Beyens & Tournel, 2010). The researcher about the actual functioning of the right to can decide if there is enough relevant speak or the written victim statement and is information given by the respondent. It is not really relevant for this thesis. A third part possible to put the interview in a completely of the interview extracts the questions different direction and adjust the regarding the expectations and perceptions conversation. Because of this flexibility it is of the VIS. This is an important part for this possible that the respondent -in this case the thesis, since it is the foundation for victim- is going to feel more at ease and answering the main research question. The provide more relevant information (Baarda, last part of the interview was about a general de Goede, & van der Meer-Middelburg, assessment of the delivery of the VIS. These 2010). questions and answers can be important to answer a sub research question in this thesis The central topic of the interviews is the (e.g., emotional recovery). perception of- and the motivation for delivering a VIS (Lens et al., 2010). Data-analysis Respondents were asked about their The data analysis in this study is aimed at experiences with the criminal process. The analyzing the interviews performed in interview begins with some questions about another study. These interview transcripts the motivation for participation or non- will be coded and based on this coding, participation with the VIS. They are asked in analysis is possible. All relevant fragments different ways and through different

14 will be coded by referring a particular code speak/written statement)? (Expectations to that part of the interview (e.g., motives – motives) participation right to speak). Before coding - Which are your personal goals of the begins, a codebook is drawn with the codes criminal process? (Expectations) which I think will be done in the interviews and which I think are relevant in order to - Do you see a relationship between the give an answer to the research question. This consequences of the offense and the use is called the “a priori approach” (Decorte & of the modality? (Expectations – Zaitch, 2010). This code book is not static; it motives) changes during the analyzing process: there - Did you expect that the modality would are codes added to the code book or some have an influence during the trial? codes disappeared. (Expectations – impact of VIS) Not all the questions that are asked during - Were there any obstacles in order to the interview will be examined. A selection participate to the modality? is made out of relevant questions that are (Expectations – motives) necessary to answer the research questions. More specifically, the questions are divided - If you look at the way you used the into two head subjects; expectations and modality, is this matching your experiences (also the leading subjects of this expectations? (Comparison expectations thesis). The motivations (expectations) of and experiences) the victims as well as the emotional recovery - How do you assess the professional help (experiences) will also be examined through of Victim Support the Netherlands and these questions. The questions used are the did this treatment match your following (translated to English from the expectations? (Comparison expectations original): and experiences Victim Support the - Most important reason for participation? Netherlands) (Expectations – motives) - Do you think that the way the modality - Most important reasons for not using the is handled is matching with your other two modalities (right to expectations about it? (Comparison expectations and experiences)

15

- Was the modality included in the victim statement. One of the victims didn’t motivation of the sentencing? use any of the modalities. (Experiences – impact VIS on It is clear that for those victims who have motivation penalty) made a written statement, the motives are - Are you happy with the participation of equal. They all want to make sure that the the modality? Would you make this perpetrator and the judge know what the choice again to participate? consequences of the offense are. They want (Experiences) to let them know what the offense has done with them and their emotions. One of the - Do you think that the modality has been victims participated because he wanted to useful to you and in which way? influence the sentencing. The one person (Experiences – emotional recovery) who didn’t made use of both modalities has - Do you have the feeling being made this decision because he did not had strengthened because of the participation the need to make a written or oral statement of the modality? (Experiences – and because he thinks that the case is not emotional recovery) serious enough to make a written or verbal statement. These four victims were also - Do you have the feeling that you are unambiguous about the reason why they strengthened enough during the trial as a didn’t made use of the right to speak. They victim? (Experiences – emotional all think that it is too emotional and too recovery) confronting to speak in court. Some of the - What is your general opinion? victims stated that it would be easier to Positive/Negative? (Experiences) speak when the perpetrator would be a stranger (not a known person to the victim). Results Victims were also clear about the goals of Expectations victims of sexual crimes the criminal process. They all think that the In this part, five interviews will be criminal process should aim at punishing the examined. These were all victims of sexual offender in order to let him know that he was crimes and four of them made the written wrong. One of the victims also includes the

16 repair of damage as one of the goals of the information transfer to the judge and being criminal process. heard. Moreover, one of the victims is trying to establish emotional recovery with the use Expectations about the practical side of the of the written statement. But here as well it VIS are a little bit divided. Two of the seems that the information transfer and the victims expected that the written statement clarification of the consequences are the would have an influence during the trial. most important motives for those victims to Their aim was to have an influence on the make a written statement. The three victims perpetrator with their written statement. One are saying that their fear and emotions are of the victims is mentioning that he only the reasons for not speaking in court (right to expected to provide information to the judge. speak). They are all formulating it a little It is clear that most of the victims do not differently (e.g., fear, emotions, not daring to know what they can expect about the confront the perpetrator). These are all practical side of the VIS. One of the victims emotional feelings and the victims are afraid who made the written statement, expected to to let these emotions go during a speech. get the chance to talk during the trial. This victim had high expectations about the Two of the three victims are stating that their written statement. goal of the criminal process is to punish the offender and to lock him up. One of the Expectations victims of manslaughter three victims is also mentioning the financial For this research, three interviews of victims part. This victim also wants a repair of the of manslaughter are available in order to damages causes by the crime. But in all three examine the expectations. All three victim- cases, the punishment of the offender is the parties have made use of the written most crucial goal of the criminal process. statement. The expectations about the practical side of As with the victims of sexual crimes, the the VIS are not the same for the three most important reason to deliver a VIS is to victims. On the one hand, for one of the show the consequences of the crime to the victims, the expectations about the judge (and/or perpetrator). This is also professional help (Victim Support the applicable to the victims of manslaughter. Netherlands) are not that high. On the other Their motives for delivery are also the hand, the expectations of the two other

17 victims are a little bit higher. They expected consequences of the crime (already that the written statement would be mentioned). One victim is mentioning that implemented in the motivation of the the emotional recovery is one of the motives sentencing and that the penalty would be for participation. This is the only victim who higher because of the written statement. is mentioning something about emotional recovery, but this victim had already used Expectations victims of stalking the right to speak in an earlier trial. The For the victims of stalking, I can make use reasons for not using the right to speak are of sixteen interviews. Nine of the victims often the same. The victims think that have made a written victim statement while speaking in court will be too emotional. three of them have delivered an oral They are also stating that when they would statement. Four individuals have chosen not speak in court, they would be vulnerable. to use any of the modalities. They are afraid to be confronted with the perpetrator. These are the most important The motives for participating in one of the reasons for not using the right to speak. Five two modalities (right to speak and written victims are mentioning that they would have statement) are a little bit more diverse in this spoken when they wouldn’t know the case than in the cases mentioned before. perpetrator. Then, it would be less emotional Almost all the victims are stating that to talk about the consequences. Four victims showing the consequences of the crime (to were not using any of the modalities. Their the perpetrator and the judge) is the reason motives for not taking part to any of the for taking part in the VIS-procedure. Besides modalities are almost all the same. Three of this, there are also some other reasons for them were mentioning that their participation. One of the sixteen victims is victimization was not that serious in order to mentioning that the damage must be make use of the victim impact statement. acknowledged by the victim impact One of them had chosen not to speak statement. Two other victims are concerned because he had some troubles with speaking. with the perpetrator; they want to make sure that the perpetrator gets professional help. The victims have also diverse goals of the Three victims are stating that they want to criminal process. Eight victims are transfer information to the judge. This can mentioning that they want to see the also be seen as making clear the perpetrator to get punished. Besides this

18 punishment, the victims also want the account during the motivation of the perpetrators to learn from this process and to sentencing, but they are not entirely sure. learn that they were wrong. Four victims One person is saying that the written want to be sure that the perpetrator commits statement definitely had an effect on the no more crimes to them and other motivation of the sentencing. One person individuals. These are the most important hasn’t used any of the modalities and is goals for these victims. happy with this choice. This person is saying that you can use these modalities when you The expectations about the practical things suffer from more severe consequences of and the influence of the VIS are a little bit crime. diverse. Victims were expecting more attention to the written statement during The victims are quite positive about the trial. A couple of victims were stating that emotional recovery after delivering a VIS. they only expected transferring information They think it was useful because they have to the judge. Others expected the statement clarified the consequences to the judge and to have an impact on the perpetrator or the perpetrator; they have the feeling that sentence. One victim was stating that he because of the VIS, they are more at rest and thinks the VIS does not have an impact on can cope with the consequences. Delivering the trial at all. a VIS was also useful, according to them, because it gave some sort of satisfaction and Experiences victims of sexual crimes it reduced the stress. The four victims are The experiences with the professional help saying that they are strengthened by the (Victim Support the Netherlands) are delivery of the VIS. Also the recognition of evaluated positive by all the victims of the victim in the trial is evaluated positive. sexual crimes. They think it was positive, The general conclusion of making a written intensive and clear. Three of the four victims statement is evaluated positively. think that the treatment during trial of the Experiences victims of manslaughter VIS and the influence on the trial was positive. One person thought he was able to The experience with the professional help of speak, but he had only chosen for written Victim Support the Netherlands is evaluated statement. Most of the victims think that the positive by two of the three victims. One written statement/oral statement is taken into victim is stating that he had no contact with

19 the Victim Support at all. They are all stating general evaluation of the written statement is something else about the practical side of the positive. VIS. One victim thinks that there was Experiences victims of stalking influence of the written statement during the trial because the consequences are now clear The victims who have delivered a VIS (right to the judge and perpetrator. But he thinks to speak or written statement) are all that there is no influence on the height of the satisfied with the professional help (Victim penalty. Another victim has the opinion that Support the Netherlands). These victims are the written statement hasn’t had enough stating that the help they provided was attention in the court room. The written intensive, good and positive. Only one statement was not taken into account in the victim is not satisfied with the help because motivation of the sentencing. A third victim the help was only at the end of the process. is stating that there was enough attention put Another victim thinks the help of Victim on the written statement during the trial and Support the Netherlands is good, but for this that the written statement was taken into person, the help should have been more account in the motivation of the sentencing. personal and less distant. The trend about the practical side of the VIS is that the written All three victims are satisfied and happy statement gets too less attention during trial with their choice to make a written and that it doesn’t have any influence. Most statement. Two of the three victims are of the times, it is unclear for the victims stating that the written statement does not whether the statement has been taken into have any benefits. These two victims also account when making the motivation of the have the feeling of not being strengthened by sentencing. Two victims think that their the written statement. One victim thinks it statement was taken into account in the has a benefit because of the emotional motivation of the sentencing. The balance of recovery and this person also thinks he is satisfaction of the victims who have made a strengthened because of the written written statement is positive. The three that statement. One victim also is mentioning delivered an oral statement are also positive that he has the feeling not being recognized about it and would do it again. Four victims as a victim because of the little attention to haven’t made use of any of the two the written statement during the trial. The modalities and three of them are happy with

20 their decision but one of them would speak offenses and manslaughter always include a or make a written statement in a new case. physical element and because the maximum sentences of these crimes are higher than The victims are having different opinions those of stalking. Stalking is most of the about their emotional recovery after times about an infringement of privacy. delivering a VIS. Some victims are stating that it has benefits delivering a VIS and the When we are comparing the different groups other ones are saying it doesn’t have any of victims based on their expectations with benefits. Most of the victims are saying that the VIS, I can conclude for this research that they are strengthened and recognized the victims of sexual crimes and victims of because of the attention. When they didn’t manslaughter have slightly other motives got enough attention during trial, they are when delivering a VIS in comparison with less satisfied with the emotional recovery the victims of stalking. The first two victim then when they got more attention. Some groups mainly want to show the victims think that the height of the penalty is consequences of the crime. The information also important for the level of strengthening. transfer is also formulated in the The perception of the VIS of the victims of “Explanatory Memorandum”10 as the first stalking is positive, except one person who goal of the VIS in the Netherlands. The didn’t use any of the modalities. This person victims of stalking also think that this is an wished he had made a written or oral important motive, but they are also statement. concerned with the perpetrator. They want to make sure the perpetrator gets professional Conclusion/discussion help. Sometimes, the victims were saying In this research, the aim was to examine the that the reason is to obtain emotional victims’ expectations before- and the recovery or to influence the sentence, but experiences after having delivered a VIS. these are more like exceptions in the Using these research questions, we are able interviews. These two reasons were also to make a comparison between the three already mentioned in previous research (e.g., groups of victims examined in this research; Edwards, 2001). The reason not to deliver an victims of sexual crimes, victims of oral statement is for the three victim groups manslaughter and victims of stalking. These the same. They all think it’s too emotional to victim groups are chosen because sexual 10 Kamerstukken II 2001/02, 27 632, nr. 5, p. 5-6

21 speak in court. This is confirming the behavior will not change with a conviction conclusion of earlier research mentioned (because it happened several times). When above; a victim can have feelings of fear or asking the victims about the practical issues anger when starting to get emotional during of the VIS, it seems that they do not really speaking in court (e.g., Lens et al., 2010). know what they can expect. This is returning Something that came back during several within all three victim groups. In general, interviews (with all the victim groups) is that they are positive about their participation. they would have spoken when the Previous research has taught us that having perpetrator was unknown. This was also high expectations about the criminal justice mentioned in literature, namely that when procedure and/or outcome is detrimental for the perpetrator was a known person to you the satisfaction level after the procedure as a victim, the chance of getting more when these expectations cannot be met and emotion(s)(al) (problems) is rising (Lamet & vice versa. When we apply these theories Wittebrood, 2009). The victims of stalking about expectations to the results, we can say are mentioning that they did not use any of that the victims may have had low the modalities because their case was not expectations (or no expectations at all), with serious enough. Also this was already a positive outcome after all (Erez & mentioned in previous research as one of the Tontodonato, 1992; Heeren, 2008; Erez, reasons not to participate (Lens et al., 2010; 1990). Erez (1990) and Erez & Tontodonato Pemberton, 2011). Something that is striking (1992) are stating that the satisfaction level in this research is that the goals of the of the sentence and procedural justice is victims of sexual crimes and victims of higher when a victim has the chance to make manslaughter are the same. They want to a VIS or has the chance to express his punish the offender. The goals of the victims feelings and wishes. So the positivity of the of stalking are half the same, but they are victims about their participation may have to also concerned with the perpetrator. They do with the possibility to make the VIS or to want the perpetrator to learn and they want express their opinions and feelings. to prevent a new crime. I think this reason is Something we can learn out of literature more common with victims of stalking (Flatman & Bagaric, 2001) and an important because this is a crime with a repeated conclusion is that it is important to inform character. The victims may think the the victims as completely as possible in a

22 way that does not increase the expectations. formulated in earlier research about the I think this will neutralize the expectations emotional recovery after delivering a victim of the victims and this will, according to me, impact statement (Lamet & Wittebrood, eventually lead to greater satisfaction with 2009). Having conversations and clarifying the criminal procedure. the consequences of the crime can help victims with their emotional recovery. These All victim groups are satisfied and positive findings of our research are confirming about the professional help of Victim earlier research (Lamet & Wittebrood, Support the Netherlands. They think their 2009). These victims all made a written help is clear and intensive. About the statement and are happy with this choice. practical side of the VIS, the three groups The victims of manslaughter have less are stating something else. The victims of consistent opinions about the emotional sexual crimes are generally satisfied with the recovery. Some are strengthened by the VIS, treatment and influence of the victim impact but for some victims it doesn’t have any statement during trial. The victims of benefits. The overall conclusion of the use of manslaughter are not that positive. They all the statement is positive. The victims of have other opinions about it. The victims of stalking are quite positive about the stalking are also a little bit less positive recognition and strengthening because of the because they think the VIS gets too less VIS. Not all victims are equally positive, but attention and has no influence during trial. the trend is positive. Also the victims of All victims, with one or two exceptions, are stalking are in general positive about the not sure about the influence of the VIS on VIS. The victims who haven’t used any of the motivation of the sentencing. This means the modalities are happy about their choice. that their statement was not explicitly cited Something that can be added to this or used in this motivation. The victims of discussion is the likelihood that a victim will sexual crimes are positive about the deliver a VIS. In literature (Lens et al. 2012; emotional recovery after delivering a Pemberton, 2010) is mentioned that when statement. They feel strengthened and the impact of the crime is high and the recognized; they can cope with the seriousness of the crime is higher, the consequences and are more at rest. They likelihood that a victim will make a VIS is think their stress-level is reduced by the VIS. also higher. I can confirm these findings These are all observations that are

23 because we can say that sexual crimes and research results are independent of manslaughter are more serious crimes and coincidence" (Baarda, de Goede, & van der almost all victims have delivered a VIS Meer-Middelburg, 2010, p. 21). (seven of the eight cases). In the case of For applying these measurement variables to stalking, twelve of the sixteen victims have this thesis, I am using the four criteria of delivered a VIS. Maesschalck (2010, pp. 126-133) (internal A general conclusion we can make is that validity, external validity, internal reliability the different victim groups agree on certain and external reliability). The internal validity issues, but they disagree on other issues. Just in this study is ensured through dealing as in recent research of Lens et al. (2012), I carefully with the information that the can state that there is a kind of respondent provides. This means that there "heterogeneity" between the victims in terms won’t be made any causal claims at the end of their expectations and experiences with of the study (no generalization). The external the VIS. validity is about generalizing the information to a theory at the end of the research. A Quality and limitations general theory will not be constructed in this For the quality of the research are, generally thesis, but there will be made conclusions believed, two criteria established; validity and theories based on this research. The and reliability. The validity is “the extent to reliability is generally enhanced by carefully which a report displays the social coding and analyzing the interviews and the phenomena correctly to which it refers” fact that the interviews are literally written (Hammersley, 1990, p. 57). Another earlier (supra). Another way of enhancing definition could be: "whether the data the reliability of this thesis is to ensure collected by you are a correct reflection of transparency of the research by reporting the existing forms of reality" (Baarda, de every important step in this research report. Goede, & van der Meer-Middelburg, 2010, The innovative aspect of this research is the p. 22). The reliability of a research examines comparative nature. There is made a whether the measurements are consistent and distinction between the expectations and stable through several measurements experiences of three types of victims. Now it (Decorte & Zaitch, 2010, p. 131). It can also is possible for policy makers and be defined by "the extent to which the

24 practitioners to implement these needs of the of the use of qualitative interviews (and no victims in their provided services. They can other data collection method), we have to adjust the services according to the type of rely on those things that are told by the victim. respondents (we cannot verify if it is true what they are saying). There are also some limitations in this research. The fact that the interviews are Recommendations done by other researchers forms a first I can recommend that researchers further limitation. When collecting the data investigate the other types of victims so that yourself, you gain more insight in the a complete picture can be made of the general opinions of the victims. Moreover, expectations and experiences of victims you can ask more questions to the around the procedure of the VIS. Due to respondent when you think that would be time constraints it was only possible to necessary. A second limitation can be that examine and compare three types of victims. because of the comparative and exploratory As stated above, based on this research, I character of this research, the selection of think it is important for policy makers and the victims was strict. Because of this, the practitioners to provide the right and enough number of interviews used is rather small. information about the procedure of the VIS. This will not be a problem because no causal This will, according to me, lead to neutral claims will be made at the end of the thesis. and objective expectations from the victims. The results of this research cannot be generalized. The use of semi-structural Bibliography interviews can be a third limitation because Baarda, D., de Goede, M., & van der Meer- of its flexibility. Because of this flexibility, Middelburg, A. (2010). Basisboek the researcher does not have a fixed order of Interviewen. Groningen/Houten: questioning. This can result in the fact that Noordhoff Uitgevers. the researcher will give more attention to a specific question in one interview and give Beyens, K., & Tournel, H. (2010). more attention to another question in another Mijnwerkers of interview because of the relevance at that ontdekkingsreizigers? Het time (Gommers, 2010, p. 60). Another kwalitatieve interview. In T. Decorte, limitation is a methodological one: because & D. Zaitch, Kwalitatieve methoden

25

en technieken in de criminologie (p. Erez, E. (1991). Victim impact statements. 574). Leuven: Acco. Australian Institute of Criminology, no. 33. Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience. American Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1992). Victim Psychologist, 59, 20-28. participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Bonnano, G., Westphal, M., & Mancini, A. Quarterly, 9, 393-417. (2011). Resilience to loss and potential trauma. Annual Review of Fattah, E. (1986). From crime policy to Clinical Psychology, 7, 1-25. victim policy. New York: St. Martin's. Cleiren, C., & Nijboer, J. (2007). Strafvordering: tekst en commentaar. Flatman, G., & Bagaric, M. (2001). The Deventer: Kluwer. victim and the prosecutor: the relevance of victims in prosecution Decorte, T., & Zaitch, D. (2010). decision making. Deakin Law Kwalitatieve methoden en technieken Review, 6, 238-255. in de criminologie. Leuven: Acco. Gommers, A. (2010). Exploratief onderzoek Edwards, I. (2001). Victim participation in naar het integriteitsbeleid binnen het sentencing: the problems of DG Justitiehuizen. Leuven: KU incoherence. The Howard Journal, Leuven. 40, 39-54. Groenhuijsen, M. (2008). Slachtoffers van Elias, R. (1984). Alienating the victim: misdrijven in het recht en in de compensation and victim attitudes. victimologie. Verslag van een Journal of Social Issues, 40, 103- intellectuele zoektocht. . Delikt en 116. Delinkwent, 121-145. Erez, E. (1990). Victim participation in Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading sentencing: rhetoric and reality. ethnographic research: A critical Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 19- guide. London: Longman. 31.

26

Heeren , P. (2008). Schadevergoeding na methoden en technieken in de een misdrijf: dwingt het recht tot criminologie (p. 574). Leuven / Den snelheid? Nederhorst den Berg: Haag: Acco. Open Universiteit Nederland. McGowan, M., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is Lamet, W., & Wittebrood, K. (2009). Nooit the victim anyway? The effects of meer dezelfde: gevolgen van bystander victim impact statements misdrijven voor slachtoffers. Den on mock juror sentencing decisions. Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Violence and victims, 19, 357-374. Planbureau. Mortelmans, D. (2012). Het kwalitatief Leferink, S., & Vos, K. (2008). Spreekrecht onderzoeksdesign. In T. Decorte, & en schriftelijke slachtofferverklaring: D. Zaitch, Kwalitatieve methoden en recht of kans? Utrecht: technieken in de criminologie (p. Slachtofferhulp Nederland. 574). Leuven: Acco.

Lens, K.M.E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, Myers, B., Lynn, S., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). S. (2012). Heterogeneity in Victim Victim impact evidence and juror Participation: A New Perspective on judgments: The effects of harm Delivering a Victim Impact information and witness demeanor. Statement. Tilburg: Intervict Tilburg Journal of Applied Social University. Psychology, 32, 2393-2412.

Lens, K.M.E., Pemberton, A., & Pemberton, A. (2005). Het spreekrecht: Groenhuijsen, M. (2010). Het vergelding of herstel? Tijdschrift spreekrecht in Nederland: een voor Herstelrecht, 5, pp. 34-44. bijdrage aan het emotioneel herstel Pemberton, A. (2008). Over egels, vliegen van slachtoffers? Tilburg: Tilburg vangen en herstelrecht. Een reactie University. op Daems, Kaptein en Walgrave. Maesschalck, J. (2010). Methodologische Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 8, 53- kwaliteit in het kwalitatief 65. criminologisch onderzoek. In T. Decorte, & D. Zaitch, Kwalitatieve

27

Pemberton, A. (2010). The cross-over: An Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2003). Repairing interdisciplinary approach to the the harm: victims and restorative study of victims of crime. justice. Utah: Utah Law Review. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn/Portland: Vandeputte, F. (2011). De rol van het Maklu Publishers. slachtoffer bij de straftoemeting. Pemberton, A. (2011). De emotionele hond Gent: UGent. en zijn rationele staart in recent

onderzoek naar slachtoffers van een misdrijf. Tijdschrift voor herstelrecht, 4, pp. 17-27.

28

Annex 1

CODEBOOK

EXPECTATIONS EXPERIENCES

Motives for participation Impact VIS on motivation penalty Motives for non-participation Satisfaction with participation

Goals criminal process Emotional recovery

Impact VIS

 Comparison expectations/experiences  Comparison expectations/experiences