In a recent case in New York federal court, the victim of a multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated by his long-time and trusted chief financial officer delivered an eloquent and impassioned victim-impact statement to the court. In his own words, the victim spoke first of the harm done to his company due to the embezzlement, then to his wish for the defendant to learn from his mistakes and make a better life for himself. As is standard in criminal cases across the nation, the impact statement gave the victim an opportunity to heard, and in this specific instance, to voice the pain and struggles he and his company faced due to the defendant’s fraud. It also allowed him to express his deep compassion for the defendant—a once trusted employee and family friend. His tone and words conveyed hurt, some understandable anger, but also, and perhaps most unexpected, forgiveness. The victim’s statement was not only moving, but also showed his nature as a man of deep faith and heartfelt humanity towards others, including those who did him harm. “Financial crime may also affect victims emotionally and spiritually. Some victims report that they have lost trust in others or in their own ability to make judgments.” Deem, D. et al., Victims of Financial Crime, in R.C. Davis, et al. (eds.) Victims ofCrime (2007), p. 133.
The defendant in this case also made his allocution in an emotional manner. “[T]he right of a defendant in a criminal case to speak at her or his sentencing hearing before the sentence is pronounced—has been recognized in English common law since 1689 and has been enshrined in some form in the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure since 1944.” Burger-Caplan, J.I., Time of Desperation: An Examination of Criminal Defendants’ Experiences of Allocuting at Sentencing, Columbia J. of Law and Social Problems, 51:1 (2017), p. 40. The purpose of allocution is to give the defendant a similar opportunity to be heard, to tell their story from their own perspective, and in many cases, allow the defendant to seem more fully human despite their wrongdoing. The defendant’s allocution appeared to provoke the spontaneous act of the victim to extend a hand of sympathy to him, which ultimately did affect the sentence imposed.
