The problem with victim statements
The recently concluded Parkland mass shooting trial highlighted a problem in the use of victim impact statements in the courts. Some statements spoken in open court, though very understandably emotional, are still inconsistent with the principles of any system of justice.
Statements criticized the Parkland jury for dividing on the death penalty, making it impossible to execute the killer despite his guilty pleas on all counts. Some victims insisted justice was not served by his getting consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
One bereaved parent called jurors “selfish and misguided,” claiming they sent a message to American school children that their safety and indeed lives are of little value. Another said the defense attorneys sickened him.
A third alleged that defense counsel were guilty of “shameful, despicable behavior” simply by representing their client. The same parent put jurors on cosmic notice: “They have to live with that in their conscience. Life is about karma. They will remember what they did when the time comes.”
The problem is not just Florida’s. Most states, including Pennsylvania, have victims’ rights statutes.
The most fundamental principle underlying all modern legal proceedings is that they aspire to calmness and objectivity. Evidence is separable from feelings; punishment is not revenge. Failure to seek some ideal of calm objectivity undermines other protections in the system.
The Parkland defense implored the judge to insist statements not personally attack officers of the court or their families. The judge maintained that the great majority of statements were acceptable. She could not or would not interrupt a statement while it was occurring, and considered it futile to comment after one was completed.
A prosecutor then charged the defense with “trying to take the voice of the survivors, the victims,” and “curtail their rights under Florida law.”
Should victims’ rights entail no responsibilities whatever? Logically, victims’ rights require respect for the system within which they are recognized as victims.
But this does not give them the right to impugn the justice system or its officers. The integrity of the criminal justice system demands that victim impact statements respect that very integrity.
If a victim making a statement impugns court officers or the justice system, judges should be able to insist the victim not discredit the court, as they do with any other trial witness. If a witness refuses, judges should be able to terminate the oral statement and refer the public to a written version.
Maybe the Parkland judge had the discretion to take such measures. The defense insisted she did. The prosecution just as vigorously claimed she didn’t. Victim impact statements made earlier in the summer seem to have been vetted, a fact that victims later deplored.
But even if the judge had such discretion, she might not feel comfortable using it in a very high-profile case without explicit statutory support. It’s precisely such cases where calm objectivity is most necessary, and most threatened.
In 2021 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a proposed victims’ rights constitutional amendment. Those rights remain politically popular. Local courts have seen emotional, high- profile criminal cases in the past, and will again in the future.
As citizens, victims have constitutionally protected rights to free speech and expression. Their opinions about individuals convicted of harming them or killing their loved one, the fairness and efficiency of the justice system, and the competence and character of officers of the court may be expressed almost without limitation in the usual public and private forums.
But these do not include a right to express contempt for the criminal justice system or its officers — including juries drawn from the public — during the administration of impartial justice within that same system.
The General Assembly should take action now to reduce a tension at the heart of our justice system. Judges should be instructed much more specifically what are the parameters for victim impact statements, and should be empowered to enforce them.