I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLEMENT THE WITNESS. YOU HAVE BEEN ANSWERING CLOSE TO 15 HOURS OF QUESTIONS. I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT AND HARD IT IS. I WANT TO SAY, AND THIS SENATOR KNOWS AND IN THIS SENATOR'S EYES YOU HAVE HANDLED IT WELL. THANK YOU AND I WILL MOVE ON TO MY QUESTION. CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR CRIME VICTIMS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGAL PROCESS. ONE EXAMPLE IS THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT WHICH I AUTHORED WITH SENATOR KYLE IN 2004. THAT LAW PROVIDES CERTAIN RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS AT CRITICAL STAGES OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. THE RIGHT TO BE NOTIFIED, TO BE PRESENT, TO BE HEARD AMONG OTHERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN YOUR EIGHT YEARS AS A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE YOU WOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER VICTIMS IMPACT STATEMENTS WHEN IMPOSING CRIMINAL SENTENCES. COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT THIS AND HOW YOU CONSIDERED CRIME VICTIMS IN MAKING YOUR SENTENCING DECISIONS AS A JUDGE? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. AS YOU SAY, THE LAW PROVIDES FOR VICTIMS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE JUDGE, TO ADDRESS THE COURT, TO EXPLAIN THE HARMS THAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. IN THE TIME THAT I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE I FOUND IT TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS, BECAUSE MY SENTENCINGS WERE ABOUT HANDING DOWN CONSEQUENCES FOR THE BEHAVIOR THAT DEFENDANTS HAD ENGAGED IN AND MAKING SURE THAT THE DEFENDANTS WHO RECEIVE THOSE CONSEQUENCES UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE GETTING THOSE CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE OF THE HARM THAT THEY HAD CAUSED. SO, WHAT I FELT WAS IMPORTANT FOR PROMOTING THE PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT, WHICH IS WHAT CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED OF JUDGES TO DO, IS TO ENSURE THAT THE HARMS WERE MADE CLEAR TO THE DEFENDANT IN EVERY CASE. SO I HAD, FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE INVOLVING ROBBERY. THERE WERE -- IT WAS A SINGLE DEFENDANT WHO COMMITTED TWO ROBBERIES. ONE IN APRIL AND ONE IN SEPTEMBER OF THE SAME SMALL PHARMACY IN DUPONT CIRCLE, WHICH IS NOT FAR FROM HERE. A SMALL, INDEPENDENT PHARMACY SELLING PHARMACEUTICALS. THIS PERSON DECIDED THAT HE WAS GOING TO ROB THE PHARMACY OF THEIR OXYCODONE AND OTHER KINDS OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR SALE. THAT IS THE SORT OF STANDARD SCENARIO THAT WE SEE IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. WHAT WAS SO PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS IN THIS CASE IS THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS SO BOLD IN HIS ROBBERIES THAT HE CAME IN IN APRIL WITH A GUN. HE HELD THE EMPLOYEES HOSTAGE ESSENTIALLY, FORCING THEM TO OPEN THE SAFE WITH THE DRUGS AND IT AT GUNPOINT AND STOLE THE DRUGS. NOT MASKED, NOT HIDING HIS IDENTITY. THIS IS PRETTY COVID. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO HAVE A MASK. HE WAS A ROBBER WITH NO FEAR OF PEOPLE IDENTIFYING HIM. BETWEEN APRIL AND SEPTEMBER HE WOULD COME BACK TO THE PHARMACY. HE WOULD LOITER OUTSIDE ON THE STREET, ACCORDING TO THE VICTIM S. THEY WOULD SEE HIM LOOKING IN THE WINDOW. ONCE OR TWICE HE CAME INSIDE, LOOKING LIKE HE WAS GOING TO BUY SOMETHING AND STARING THEM DOWN. THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS AND THEY CALLED THE POLICE. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO APPREHEND HIM, BECAUSE HE HADN'T REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT THAT POINT. THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN THE PHARMACY WERE TERRIFIED. THEY WERE TERRIFIED BY THAT BEHAVIOR. THE MENACING NATURE OF IT. BY THE TIME WE GET TO SEPTEMBER, HE ACTUALLY COMES IN AND THEY THINK THIS IS ANOTHER TIME WHEN HE IS LOITERING, BUT HE PULLS OUT A GUN, HOPS OVER THE COUNTER, ASSAULTS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING THERE, AND STEALS THE DRUGS AGAIN. THAT TIME THEY WERE ABLE TO CALL THE POLICE AND ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO COME AND APPREHEND HIM. AT HIS TRIAL -- EXCUSE ME. HE DIDN'T GO TO TRIAL. I AM THE JUDGE. HE PLED GUILTY TO THIS BEHAVIOR, WHICH WAS WELL DOCUMENTED. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE THAT IT WASN'T HIM. THE GUIDELINES IN THE CASE AND THE STATUTES THAT APPLIED SAID BECAUSE HE USED THE GUN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET SOMETHING LIKE SEVEN YEARS. I USED THE VICTIMS' STATEMENTS TO EXPLAIN TO HIM HOW HE HAD TERRORIZED THE PEOPLE. THERE STATEMENTS -- ONE WOMAN SAID "I CAN'T WORK AT THE PHARMACY ANYMORE BECAUSE I AM SO FEARFUL THAT THIS GUY WILL COME BACK. IT HAS CHANGED MY WHOLE LIFE." IT WAS A WHOLE SET OF REALLY HORRIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I READ THE HIM AT HIS SENTENCING SO HE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT HE HAD DONE. THEN I SENTENCED HIM ABOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS WARRANTED TO MAKE CLEAR TO HIM THAT THIS WAS A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE THING THAT HE HAD DONE TO THESE PEOPLE. THE VICTIM'S STATEMENTS WERE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY EXPLAINED TO ME AND HIM THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS BEHAVIOR BEYOND HOW MANY DRUGS THAT HE STOLE OR THE FACT THAT HE USED A GUN. THERE WERE REAL-LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RESULTED FROM HIS BEHAVIOR, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO UNDERSTAND THAT. ...