Victim Impact Statement Analysis

The use of victim impact statements as aggravating evidence during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial is in direct conflict with the Eighth Amendment and the Court’s prior precedent. The introduction of this testimony from family members, who are generally not witnesses to the crime, endangers the petitioner’s right to fairly imposed sentencing hearing by risking arbitrary and capricious actions from the jury. In the present case, victim impact statements provide three types of information to the jury. “First,” as Justice Powell explained, “it described the personal characteristics of the victims and the emotional impact of the crimes on the family.” “Secondly,” he continues, “it set forth the family members' opinions and characterizations …show more content…
However, the admittance of victim impact statements does not produce justice in a fair manner. The use of victim impact statements is an inappropriate tool for the determination of blameworthiness in a specific case. Woodson v. North Carolina established that a jury is to view the defendant as a “uniquely individual human being.” In addition the Court has consistently held that “[f]or purposes of imposing the death penalty, . . . [the defendant's] punishment must be tailored to his personal responsibility and moral guilt." However, victim impact statements shift the focus from the defendant to the reputation of the victim and the effect on the victim’s family, factors that are generally unrelated to the blameworthiness of the petitioner. The defendant, in capital murder cases is usually unaware of the victim’s reputation or how the murder will affect the victim’s family members. Certainly, petitioner, who knew his victims for at most two weeks, could not have had knowledge of the victims’ reputation or character and he had only met one of the victim’s family members at the time of the murders. Because petitioner was unaware of these factors, Amicus agrees with Justice Powell’s conclusion that “This evidence thus could divert the jury's attention away from the defendant's background and record, and the circumstances of the crime.” Diversion from a focus on the defendant through the use of …show more content…
Does a victim of questionable character not deserve the same level of justice as a valued and sterling member of society? In the past Justice White has argued, “I doubt that the Court means to suggest that there is any constitutional impediment, for example, to authorizing the death sentence for the assassination of the President or Vice President, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1751, 1111, a Congressman, Cabinet official, Supreme Court Justice, or the head of an executive department, 18 U.S.C. § 351, or the murder of a policeman on active duty, see Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 413(d)(1) (1982).” However, this country was founded on the principle that every man is created equal regardless of any perceived character flaws. It is not unreasonable to argue that in the eyes of a family member the life of relative, even of questionable character, may be viewed as more important than the life the president or some other political bigwig. In addition, not all assassins of famous political or social figures receive a sentence of death. Notable examples are Sirhan Sirhan (Robert F. Kennedy), James Earl Ray (Martin Luther King), Mark David Chapman (John Lennon), and Charles Manson (Manson family murders). The victims of these crimes were inarguably sterling and valued members of the communities to which they belonged. Yet, their murderers were not held to a higher form of punishment because