Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements. Schuster, M. L. & Propen, A. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 6(1):75–104, February, 2010. ![Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Emotional standards and hierarchies in the courtroom may affect judicial reactions to victim impact statements. Based on judicial conversations and courtroom observations in two judicial districts in Minnesota, we suggest that judges contrast emotion with reason in order to maintain control of their courtrooms; when faced with emotional expressions in victim impact statements, judges appreciate expressions of compassion and tolerate expressions of grief but are uncomfortable with expressions of anger. These judicial responses to emotional expression, however, must be contextualized; for example, the judges we spoke with often articulated different reactions to impact statements given by victims of sexual assault, those who are strangers to the perpetrator, and impact statements given by victims of domestic violence, those who are in a relationship with the perpetrator.
@article{schuster_degrees_2010,
title = {Degrees of {Emotion}: {Judicial} {Responses} to {Victim} {Impact} {Statements}},
volume = {6},
issn = {1743-8721},
shorttitle = {Degrees of {Emotion}},
url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1743872109349104},
doi = {10.1177/1743872109349104},
abstract = {Emotional standards and hierarchies in the courtroom may affect judicial reactions to victim impact statements. Based on judicial conversations and courtroom observations in two judicial districts in Minnesota, we suggest that judges contrast emotion with reason in order to maintain control of their courtrooms; when faced with emotional expressions in victim impact statements, judges appreciate expressions of compassion and tolerate expressions of grief but are uncomfortable with expressions of anger. These judicial responses to emotional expression, however, must be contextualized; for example, the judges we spoke with often articulated different reactions to impact statements given by victims of sexual assault, those who are strangers to the perpetrator, and impact statements given by victims of domestic violence, those who are in a relationship with the perpetrator.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2017-05-25},
journal = {Law, Culture and the Humanities},
author = {Schuster, Mary Lay and Propen, Amy},
month = feb,
year = {2010},
keywords = {0.Discussed in Workshop, affect, judicial genre, judicial rhetoric, quasi-judicial, victim impact statements},
pages = {75--104},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"kxqmomMG7EHD56QbZ","bibbaseid":"schuster-propen-degreesofemotionjudicialresponsestovictimimpactstatements-2010","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-06-06T14:23:39.247Z","title":"Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements","author_short":["Schuster, M. L.","Propen, A."],"year":2010,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/odellcampbell/1132825","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements","volume":"6","issn":"1743-8721","shorttitle":"Degrees of Emotion","url":"http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1743872109349104","doi":"10.1177/1743872109349104","abstract":"Emotional standards and hierarchies in the courtroom may affect judicial reactions to victim impact statements. Based on judicial conversations and courtroom observations in two judicial districts in Minnesota, we suggest that judges contrast emotion with reason in order to maintain control of their courtrooms; when faced with emotional expressions in victim impact statements, judges appreciate expressions of compassion and tolerate expressions of grief but are uncomfortable with expressions of anger. These judicial responses to emotional expression, however, must be contextualized; for example, the judges we spoke with often articulated different reactions to impact statements given by victims of sexual assault, those who are strangers to the perpetrator, and impact statements given by victims of domestic violence, those who are in a relationship with the perpetrator.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2017-05-25","journal":"Law, Culture and the Humanities","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schuster"],"firstnames":["Mary","Lay"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Propen"],"firstnames":["Amy"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2010","keywords":"0.Discussed in Workshop, affect, judicial genre, judicial rhetoric, quasi-judicial, victim impact statements","pages":"75–104","bibtex":"@article{schuster_degrees_2010,\n\ttitle = {Degrees of {Emotion}: {Judicial} {Responses} to {Victim} {Impact} {Statements}},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tissn = {1743-8721},\n\tshorttitle = {Degrees of {Emotion}},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1743872109349104},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/1743872109349104},\n\tabstract = {Emotional standards and hierarchies in the courtroom may affect judicial reactions to victim impact statements. Based on judicial conversations and courtroom observations in two judicial districts in Minnesota, we suggest that judges contrast emotion with reason in order to maintain control of their courtrooms; when faced with emotional expressions in victim impact statements, judges appreciate expressions of compassion and tolerate expressions of grief but are uncomfortable with expressions of anger. These judicial responses to emotional expression, however, must be contextualized; for example, the judges we spoke with often articulated different reactions to impact statements given by victims of sexual assault, those who are strangers to the perpetrator, and impact statements given by victims of domestic violence, those who are in a relationship with the perpetrator.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2017-05-25},\n\tjournal = {Law, Culture and the Humanities},\n\tauthor = {Schuster, Mary Lay and Propen, Amy},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tkeywords = {0.Discussed in Workshop, affect, judicial genre, judicial rhetoric, quasi-judicial, victim impact statements},\n\tpages = {75--104},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Schuster, M. L.","Propen, A."],"key":"schuster_degrees_2010","id":"schuster_degrees_2010","bibbaseid":"schuster-propen-degreesofemotionjudicialresponsestovictimimpactstatements-2010","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1743872109349104"},"keyword":["0.Discussed in Workshop","affect","judicial genre","judicial rhetoric","quasi-judicial","victim impact statements"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["degrees","emotion","judicial","responses","victim","impact","statements","schuster","propen"],"keywords":["0.discussed in workshop","affect","judicial genre","judicial rhetoric","quasi-judicial","victim impact statements"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["q8n7JfHoJmHYyvnMR","RK5bzmTK8hKbmqQSC"]}