The Anglo-American debate over victim statements and its policy implications

This study aims to examine the potentially controversial elements of the current victim statement system in Korea and to find solutions to them so that the system can develop in the right direction. The potential issues under discussion are drawn from the experience of Western societies, particularly the Anglo-American region. The main concerns of this article include the following issues: the conditions of acceptable statement content, the issue of allowing victims' sentencing opinions, the permissibility of references to victims' values and characteristics, the form of delivery of victim statements (oral statements, written statements, proxy statements by third parties, standard forms, etc.), the use of video or music in victim statements, and the right of the defendant to cross-examine victim’s statement. The debates and policy implications of each of these topics are organized through two frameworks: an instrumental model, which focuses on the impact of victim statements on sentencing, and an expressive model, which focuses on the victim's well-being and communicative abilities. The analysis found that the controversy and confusion surrounding the victim statement system stems in part from a lack of clarity on the purpose of the system and inadequate practical guidance for its operation. Based on this discussion, this article suggests that the following are important considerations for proper operation of victim statements: clarifying the purpose of the system and providing adequate guidance to victims; limiting prejudicial and inflammatory statements and expressions; exploring non-adversarial and eclectic approaches to the issue of a defendant's right to cross-examine a victim about his or her statements; involving victim support workers in the preparation of victim statements; and ensuring that victim statements are oriented toward victim restitution and healing.