CRIME, VICTIM, AND THE STATE: DIFFERING RATIONALES

Abstract

Crime’s wrongfulness is in part determined by the harmfulness it inadvertently causes, but research in victimology reveals that the experienced consequences of similarly severe crimes display large variation from one case to the next (Winkel, 2007). Although there is a clear correlation between the harm victims experience and the severity of the offence, pre-existing, co-occurring and aftermath factors all influence the experience of victims of crime (Ozer et al., 

2003). Whereas people’s reactions to offenders follow the logic of empirical reason and are guided by the severity of the crime committed, assistance and support to help victims recover from the crime’s impact are guided by the harm that actually emerges. The reactions to offenders and victims in the aftermath of crime follow different rationales. The severity of the crime determines the punishment of the offender, the actual harm that results drives the need for support and assistance of the victim. The latter is correlated to, but not determined by, the severity of the crime. In addition, people’s reactions are contingent on their expectations of a reasonable response to a crime of a given severity. With the introduction of the Victim Impact Statement, the question is raised of whether allowing such victim input during the criminal proceedings would influence the offender’s sentence.