The role of the victim in the sentencing process continues to create controversy among researchers and practitioners across many jurisdictions. The debate focuses on the propriety of allowing victims input into the sentencing process in an adversarial legal system. This article begins with a discussion of the conceptions of victim impact statements over the last two decades and then attempts to demonstrate how the movement to provide victims with a voice has been derailed and replaced by a model that stresses the impact of victim input on the sentence imposed. It is argued that the focus on impact is misplaced in failing to reflect the true purpose of a victim statement, its expressive and communicative aims. The article focuses on the communicative value of the victim impact statement, highlights the role of the victim impact statement as reciprocal communication, and the compatibility of this function of the victim impact statement with current sentencing theories. Examples are presented of court-sanctioned procedures in which reciprocal communication of crime impact has been shown to have positive effects on victims and offenders. Research findings about the benefits for victims and offenders of reciprocal communication highlight the value of communication and of providing victims with the opportunity to exercise their allocution right. Bringing the victim impact statement back to its original course means moving away from an approach which emphasizes impact and towards the expressive function, providing victims with a voice in the sentencing process. References