Procedural 'Rights' of Victims of Crime: Public or Private Ordering of the Criminal Justice Process?

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick
2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-538
Author(s):  
Susan Leahy ◽  
Eimear Spain

The article considers the impact which the Victims’ Directive will have on service provision for victims in Ireland and the challenges which will be faced in seeking to make the objectives of the Directive a reality. The primary focus of the Directive is the provision of effective services to victims of crime ‘to ensure that [they] receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings’. Unlike proposals to give participatory or procedural rights to victims, providing services such as court accompaniment or similar supports is uncontroversial. However, while these rights are not controversial in principle, ensuring that victims receive consistent and effective services throughout their engagement with the criminal justice process is not necessarily easily achieved. The article begins by discussing the expectations which the Directive creates for victims under each of its three themes; that is, information, support and protection. Within the discussion of each theme, the article will highlight shortcomings which have been experienced by Irish victims in that area in the past and consider the initial attempts which have been made to meet the Directive’s objectives with regard to that specific theme. The authors argue that although clear efforts have been made to ensure the expectations created by the Directive become a reality, Ireland still has some way to go before full compliance is achieved. The article concludes by considering some of the general, practical challenges posed when seeking to implement the level of service provision envisaged by the Directive and outlining the commitments which the state will need to make to ensure that appropriate, Directive-compliant services are provided to victims.


2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-90
Author(s):  
Matthew Hall

This paper sets out to marry three areas of concern to modern victimology. In the first instance the paper will explore the ‘cultural turn’ taken in our understandings of what it means to be a victim of crime in thetwenty-first century. McGarry and Walklate (2015) characterise such ‘cultural victimology’ as comprising a wider sharing and reflection of individual and collective victimisation experiences, on the one hand, and,on the other, the mapping of those experiences through the criminal justice process. This paper will explore the interaction between such cultural understandings of victimhood and the political and policy forces which,since at least the late 1990s, have pledged to ‘rebalance’ the criminal justice systems of England and Wales and other jurisdictions to put victims ‘at the heart’ of those processes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Ellison ◽  
Vanessa E Munro

Over the last two decades successive governments in England and Wales have stated a commitment to placing victims of crime at the heart of the criminal justice agenda. A raft of polices and reforming measures have been introduced with the declared aim of improving the experience and treatment of victims within the criminal process. Despite these developments, the government has recently conceded that the criminal justice process has continued to fall short—whether in relation to helping victims to recover in the aftermath of a crime or supporting them through the stresses of investigation and trial. In this article we argue that applying a trauma-informed lens to evaluate victim-centred initiatives helps to explain the failure of victim policy in England and Wales to fully deliver on its promise. We highlight the barriers that experiences of trauma can present to effective victim participation and the extent to which current trial processes are often liable to exacerbate rather than ameliorate trauma amongst a broad constituency of victims.


Author(s):  
Patrick Bashizi Bashige Murhula ◽  
Aden Dejene Tolla

Restorative justice is a holistic philosophy that has become increasingly popular in reformist criminal justice debates and criminological research. However, there is some debate as to whether its programs adequately address victims’ needs. To this end, this paper analyses the effectiveness of restorative justice practices on victims of crime. Drawing on my interviews conducted with victims of crime and legal experts in South Africa, the findings of this study offer support for the effectiveness of a restorative justice approach to addressing victim satisfaction. Restorative justice can enable the needs of victims to be more fully considered during the criminal justice process. This is very different from contemporary criminal justice, which has often effectively excluded victims from almost every aspect of its proceedings despite its continuous reform to protect and promote victims’ rights.


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document