Vote: Publish pending minor changes ________________________________________
[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
The article is well written and addresses an important and timely topic that is (still) debated in the legal community about the wisdom of using victim impact statements (VIS) in proceedings, the rationale for the right to deliver VIS in court, their impact on sentencing, victims’ benefits from delivering VIS,. And, as this article documents, how should judges relate to VIS and the victims who deliver them in court. The article employs sound a methodology and includes interning findings; as such it is a contribution to the literature.
The following minor changes/additions are recommended to further stretched the paper:
The authors should consult and include the article by Paul Cassell, who summarizes the legally-based reasons and court cases that justified the comments that Judge Aquinlina made to the victims, defending her against the criticism legal practitioners raised against her remarks to the victims, as detailed in the current article. The title and reference to Cassell’s article appear below:
Paul Cassell (2018) In Supporting the Gymnastics Victims, Judge Aquilina Got It Right.
A general discussion of efforts to integrate victims in proceedings and how different legal practitioners employ them in the criminal justice system to empower victims or make their participation in justice easier or help relieve their anxiety can be found in
Edna Erez, Julie L. Globokar and Peter R. Ibarra (2014), Outsiders inside: Victim management in an era of participatory reforms. International Review of Victimology, 20(1): 169-188