The data were collected for a comprehensive examination of the effects of victim impact statements on sentencing outcomes, court processes, and victims' satisfaction with justice. In addition to interviews with the legal professionals, a variety of data sources were used to study these issues, including sentencing statistics, court files, and a survey of crime victims. Transcripts of interviews with the 44 participants were analyzed and coded. Each was read separately, and the emerging themes were then compared across all the transcripts. Objectivity emerged as a major across-case theme. It was apparent, however, that each group of legal practitioners had differing perceptions of objectivity, and each saw personal actions as representative of objectivity, while the actions of other practitioners were viewed as subjective. In maintaining a position of objectivity in which everything is a balancing act, the symbolic attainment of an objective interpretation admits a broad spectrum of possible subjectivity, including expert witnesses, victim's voices, aggressive defense attorneys, attacking prosecutors, concerns about public reactions, and knowledge of the defendant's background. In this process, objectivity is an evolving semiosis of interchange; exchange; and subjective, interpretive readings of data. Eventually, choices are made, and subjectivity in the form of personal reactions is apparent. Although symbolic processes of objectivity were given attention and maintained, subjectivity, although decried, was an active feature of participants' routine activities. 18 references