This is in response to the opinion piece “Should victim testimony count in parole hearings?” (Feb. 1). The starting premise — that victims are “testifying” at post-conviction release hearings — is but one of many aspects that contributes to a misunderstanding of victims’ rights.

The writer properly quotes from NCVLI’s article that victims in most jurisdictions have a right “to be heard.” Notably, NCVLI’s phrasing is distinct from the “testimony” vocabulary the writer uses. This may seem like a minor linguistic difference, but it is not; the difference goes to the very heart and purpose of victims’ rights. States across the country have passed rights for victims into law — both as statutes and constitutional provisions.

Broadly speaking, these rights ensure crime victims can choose to be notified, present and heard at critical junctures in criminal justice — including release. The rights, at their core, ensure that the human being impacted by crime can understand and be part of the justice system rather than merely being a piece of evidence in it. This understanding and foundation of victims’ rights evolved, in part, out of notions of procedural justice and the idea that to exclude someone from a process who is deeply impacted by that process (victim or accused/offender) does more harm than good.

When it comes to parole, the potential of an offender’s release presents significant emotional and, in many instances, very real safety concerns for the victims of the offense for which the offender is serving a sentence. Affording victims the right to be heard at this moment ensures that they know release may happen; understand why, when and how it may happen; and can share information with the releasing authority that can inform its decision. If an offender is to be released, hearing from crime victims may assist with setting release conditions that ensure the safety of the victims and the community. These conditions can range from geographic restrictions, no contact orders and electronic monitoring. Potentially lifesaving conditions.

Importantly, in every jurisdiction where a crime victim has a right to be heard the ultimate release decision is left in the hands of the releasing authority. Crime victims have no veto authority, nor does their opinion or safety concern legally out weight other factors taken into consideration for release.

The writer contends that crime victims’ right to be heard at parole creates an opportunity for them to further punish their offender. This is inaccurate. The crime victim cannot change or alter an offender’s sentence.

The sentence has been set. Releasing authorities are tasked with weighing myriad factors the outcome of which is either the offender continuing to serve the sentence imposed or a reduction of their sentence. Crime victims speaking to the impact of the crime and any safety concerns around the confinement and release of their offender does not result in an offenders’ detention — it simply provides information. Allowing those most impacted by a decision — offender and victim alike — to be heard in this process ensures the humanity of the process.

Meg Garvin, MA, JD, MsT is executive director and clinical professor of law for the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon.