The admissibility of victim impact evidence, especially during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial, remains a highly controversial question. The first case that addressed it was Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987) – John Booth was found guilty “of two counts of first-degree murder and related crimes,” and were sentenced to death by the jury on the basis of a presentence report prepared by the State of Maryland (para. 1). At the same time, in this case, a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) was barred as it was regarded as the violation of the Eighth Amendment that presupposes the unacceptability of excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment. In turn, victims’ emotional statement related to the impact of a crime on their lives could lead to an unacceptable risk of imposing of a death sentence by the jury on the basis of emotions rather than facts.
At the same time, Booth v. Maryland case were frequently overturned in favor of a VIS and, as a criminal justice professional, I believe that the Eighth Amendment should not bar the admissibility of victim impact evidence as its practice cannot be regarded unconstitutional. First of all, the sentencing authority should rely on evidence that has already prove the defendant’s guilt while a VIS allows to portray the particular crime’s actual harm. At the same time, victim impact evidence is not only an emotional statement – instead, it is a source of information that helps reconstruct the whole picture of a crime. Moreover, the human rights of victims should not be ignored as well, especial in the case of severe crimes. For a considerable number of them, a VIS has a therapeutic effect essential for healing. Thus, although a VIS may be regarded as a controversial practice when a lack of evidence does not allow to deliver a verdict, it is fully acceptable in the case of serious evidence in favor of the judgement of conviction.
Reference
Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496. (1987). Justia. US Supreme Court. Web.