Introduction

Does the expression of anger have any role to play in victim impact statements and if so, what should that role be? Victim impact statements are written or oral statements made by the victim of a crime to jurors or judges as part of court proceedings. The statements generally express the impact of the defendant's crime on the victim, or in capital cases, on the victim's family. The use of victim impact statements has become increasingly common in recent years, partly in response to concerns that victims have historically been neglected by the criminal justice system. By being active participants in the legal process, victim impact statements allegedly bring victims closure and a sense that justice has been done.

Many victims express anger at the injustice they have suffered, and some express a strong desire for vengeance or retribution. Although the expression of anger is understandable, given the gravity of the harms suffered by victims, judges and legal scholars have expressed some reticence or unease with expressions of anger in the context of a victim impact statement. Anger is considered a destructive emotion, which potentially undermines reasonable deliberation, impartiality and equality before the law.

While taking into account these concerns, I suggest that there are good reasons for reconsidering the legitimacy of expressing anger in the context of a criminal trial and what the expression of anger is intended to achieve. In this chapter, I argue that expressions of anger in victim impact statements are invariably a kind of performance, intended to signal or communicate to specific audiences, such as judges and juries, that an injustice has occurred to a specific individual and that this injustice needs to be recognized and rectified. The issue then, is not so much one of whether victims should express anger, but how that anger should be expressed. To this end, I suggest that expressions of anger should be constrained by two important conditions: the expression of anger should be proportionate to the moral issue, and speakers should exercise restraint in the language they use to express their anger.