Abstract

Victim impact statements allow the victim’s family to describe to the jury how they have been affected by the crime and some give insight into who the victim was. The use of such statements has been a source of controversy within the Supreme Court. Payne v. Tennessee reestablished the constitutionality of victim impact statements and held that the courts must decide constitutionality on a case by case basis. Another issue not yet addressed by the Supreme Court, is family members’ tendency to use dehumanizing language to describe the defendant. In the present study participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions varying the presence of victim impact statements along with the use of dehumanizing language. The participants in the dehumanizing language condition were no more or less likely to sentence the defendant to death.