Reasonable Limits to Contents and Submission of Victim Impact Statement -From Psychological Perspective-

피해자충격진술의 내용 및 방법에 대한 비판적 검토 -심리학적 관점을 중심으로-

  • 이권철 (백석대학교 법행정경찰학부) ;
  • 이영림 (단국대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2016.05.11
  • Accepted : 2016.06.28
  • Published : 2016.09.28


Victim Impact Statement, adopted as a crime victims' right, has been implemented in Korean criminal justice system since 2007, and known that the statement enlarges victims' right in courts and alleviates their suffering resulted from the crime. The statement, however, has raised concerns of infringing on a defendant's procedural rights. Scholars and practitioners had focused more on the legal issue, overlooking psychological effect of the statement to decision-makers in courts. This research reviews fallacy of impact assessment and therapeutic effect from psychological perspective, and also suggests alternatives to assuage the concerns by admission of the statement.


  1. Constitutional Court of Korea, 1989. 4. 17, 88 Heonma 3 Decision.
  2. J. Hoffmann, "Revenge or Mercy? Some Thought about Survivor Opinion Evidence in Death Penalty Cases," Cornell Law Review, Vol.88, No.2, pp.530-542, 2003.
  3. J. Kim, Research on System of Victim Opinion Statement, Korean Institute of Criminology, 2008.
  4. K. Lee, Reasonable Limits on Victim's Right to be Heard at Capital Sentencing, Indiana University, 2008.
  5. W. Logan, "Victim Impact Evidence in Federal Capital Trials," Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol.19, No.1, pp.5-12, Oct. 2006.
  6. Y. Min, "A Critical Examination on Victim Statement of Opinion," J. of the Justice, No.93, pp.164-179, 2006.
  7. J. Greenberg, "Is Payne Defensible?: the Constitutionality of Admitting Victim Impact Evidence at Capital Sentencing Hearing," Indiana Law Journal, Vol.75, No.4, pp.1349-1382, 2000.
  8. W. Logan, "Opining on Death: Witness Sentence Recommendations in Capital Trials," Boston College Law Review, Vol.41, No.3, pp.517-547, 2000.
  9. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, at 506. n.8, 1987.
  10. R. Mosteller, "The Effect of Victim-Impact Evidence on the Defense," J. of Criminal Justice, Vol.8, No.24, pp.27-28, 1993.
  11. S. Bandes, "Empathy, Narrative, and Victim Impact Statements," University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.63, No.2, pp.361-412, 1996.
  12. E. Mandery, "Notions of Symmetry and Self in Death Penalty Jurisprudence," Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol.15, No.2, pp.471-518, 2004.
  13. E. Suh, E. Diener, and F. Fujita, "Events and Subjective Well-Being: Only Recent Events Matter," J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.70, No.5, pp.1091-1102, 1996.
  14. P. Brickman, D. Coates, and R. Janoff-Bulman, "Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?," J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.36, No.5, pp.917-927, 1978.
  15. E. Greene, H. Koehring and M. Quiat, "Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases: Does the Victim's Character Matter?," J. of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.28, No.2, pp.145-151, 1998.
  16. E, Greene, "The Many Guises of Victim Impact Evidence and Effects on Juror's Judgments," J. of Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol.5, No.4, pp.331-348, 1999.
  17. R. Davis, First Year Evaluation of the Victim Impact Demonstration Project, Victim Services Agency, City of New York, 1985.
  18. E. Ereza and P. Tontodonatoa, "Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice," Justice Quarterly, Vol.95, No.3, pp.393-417, 1992.
  19. E. Erez, L. Roeger, and F. Morgan, Victim Impact Statements In South Australia: An Evaluation, Australian Attorney-General's Department, 1994.
  20. R. Davis and B. Smith, "Victim Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction: an Unfulfilled Promise?," J. of Criminal Justice, Vol.22, No.1, 1994.
  21. J. Anderson, "Will the Punishment Fit the Victims? The Case for Pre-trial Disclosure, and the Uncharted Future of Victim Impact Information in Capital Jury Sentencing," Rutgers Law Journal, Vol.28, No.1, p.367, 1997.
  22. J. Donahoe, "The Changing Role of Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases," Western Criminology Review, Vol.2, No.1, 1999.