Select Committee Urged to Avoid the “Oprahfication” of the Courtroom
Rethinking Crime and Punishment agrees that victims should be able to provide information to the court about the effects
of offending; and the harm they have suffered. However, it does not believe that the presentation of a victim impact
statement in the Court, was the best way to achieve it.
In its oral submission on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill Kim Workman, Director told the Justice and Electoral Select
Committee that great care and wisdom will be needed to prevent rhetorical appeals to victims’ suffering to deteriorate
into a public skewering of the offender. “At its worst, it could lead to the “Oprahfication” of the Courtroom, , with
the TV cameras capturing every twitch of the offender for signs of defiance or remorse, and the New Zealand viewing
public casting their votes accordingly.”
“Providing a better service to victims does not always translate into better practise. It would be to the ultimate
detriment of the victim if the opportunity to tell the offender in the courtroom how the crime has affected them, became
an exercise in retribution. While many victims believe at the that they will feel better for it, research shows that
victims who take revenge in this way have often felt worse off than if they had done nothing at all.”
Our experience with restorative justice conferences tells us that the victim’s decision to meet with an offender is
driven by one of three things. Firstly, they want to talk about the harm they have suffered, to challenge the offender
about their actions, , and have them respond. Secondly, they want to understand why the offender committed the offence,
their motivation, and personal circumstances. Thirdly, they want to assess whether the offender is genuinely sorry for
what happened.
Victims will continue to be dissatisfied with the proposed arrangements, because the Court does not allow for that sort
of dialogue. That is not its function. It leaves victims feeling angry and disempowered.
Mr Workman recommended that instead of a victim reading out a statement, a private facilitated meeting be held between
the offender and victim, at which the victim was free to make their feelings known within acceptable limits, and the
offender had the opportunity to respond. The outcome of the meeting would then be reported back to the Court, achieving
the same purpose as a Victim Impact Statement, but in a way that was more satisfying to the victim.
Reference: Oral Submission to Justice and Electoral Select Committee at: