The Supreme Court Law Governing the Use of Victim Impact Statements

607 Words2 Pages

How and Why the U.S. Supreme Court developed the law governing the use of “Victim Impact Statements” (VIS)?
There is no definitive dividing line between the how and why the U.S. Supreme Court developed the VIS laws since both questions overlap. In the Capital cases of Booth v. Maryland, Gathers v. South Carolina and Payne v. Tennessee the U.S. Supreme Court were tasked to decide if the VIS were constitutional.
The Supreme Court developed the laws governing Victim Impact Statements based on what they thought was a constitutional conflict where the punishment may be enhanced when a statement made by the victim or family may have more of an impact on the sentencing authority than the severity of the crime (Stevens 2000). Or that the victim impact statement may draw the juries attention away from the evidence at hand and the case being decided through emotional not evidence based means. The Eighth Amendment requires that no excessive bail be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
Weems v. United States (1910) set a judicial precedent for showing that punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed and allowed courts to decide what is “cruel and unusual”. Lower courts allowed the VIS and that use sometimes came under question. Thus the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to review. In Booth v. Maryland (1987) and Gathers v. South Carolina (1989) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that VIS could potentially lead to harsher sentences and yet upon further review reconsider their stance on VIS and overturn their decisions and concluded that the Eight Amendment was not violated by victim Impact statements on the ground that such statements did not lead to cruel and unusual punish...

... middle of paper ...

...p.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&page= 805

Stevens, Mark. (2000). Victim Impact Statements Considered in Sentencing. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 2(1), 3. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=bjcl

Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment-Rummel, Solem and The Venerable Case of Weems v. United States. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1984:789. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2886&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2886%2526context%253Ddlj%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0U6qTJJcBT1EoWmQVHDXIojJgBHw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2886%26context%3Ddlj%22

More about The Supreme Court Law Governing the Use of Victim Impact Statements

Open Document