Addressing vulnerability in Ireland’s criminal justice system: A survey of recent statutory developments

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Cusack

For over a quarter of century Ireland’s statutory special measures framework, as originally enacted by the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, remained largely unchanged, falling beyond the reformative gaze of successive Irish governments. This period of political inertia, however, came to an abrupt end in 2017 when Irish policymakers, motivated by developments at a European Union level, introduced two landmark legislative instruments which promised to reimagine the availability and diversity of Ireland’s store of statutory testimonial accommodations, namely the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017. By interrogating these newly-commenced instruments in light of the experience of crime victims with intellectual disabilities, this paper surveys the current procedural landscape governing the treatment of vulnerable crime victims in Ireland and is intended to go some way towards exposing the embedded evidential barriers which continue to prejudice efforts aimed at securing their best evidence in court.

2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Warner ◽  
Jenny Gawlik

Increased recognition of the need for victims of crime to be integrated into the criminal justice system and to receive adequate reparation has led, in a number of jurisdictions, to legislative measures to encourage the greater use of compensation orders. The Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) (which came into force on 1 August 1998) went further and made compensation orders compulsory for property damage or loss resulting from certain crimes. This article shows that this measure has failed victims and argues that they have been used in the service of other ends. Mandatory compensation orders are a token gesture repackaged as restorative justice to gain public support for the administration of the criminal justice system.Ways in which compensation orders could be made more effective and the possibilities of accommodating restorative compensation into a conventional criminal justice system are explored.


2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 301-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Sebba

While this comment primarily addresses the article by Anat Horovitz and Thomas Weigend on human dignity and victims' rights in the German and Israeli criminal process, it begins with a consideration of the role of the victim in other component parts of the criminal justice system, and in particular the substantive criminal law—a topic addressed in other articles included in this issue. There follows a review of the comparative analysis of the victim's role in Germany and Israel put forward by Horovitz and Weigend and a critique of the issues they raise, particularly as to the salience of the victim's procedural role. It is argued here that the victim should have a somewhat more meaningful role than that envisaged by these authors. The comment concludes with a brief consideration of the potential for the advancement of alternative remedies currently neglected by both systems, such as restorative justice.


1990 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan T. Harland ◽  
Cathryn J. Rosen

Restitution is unique among criminal justice policies by virtue of the widespread support it has attained from many diverse constituencies. Restitution has received such universal praise as a panacea for victims of crime that in recent years a number of American jurisdictions have adopted legislation that creates a presumptive norm that restitution be awarded in appropriate cases. Despite popular support for its increased use and enactment of enabling legislation, restitution continues to be underutilized in actual case dispositions. The authors suggest that the underuse problem will not be cured and the powerful potential that restitution holds as a criminal justice sanction will not be realized until a consensus regarding the definition of restitution is achieved, significant gaps in the technical data about how restitution is effectuated are closed, and practical impediments to awarding and collecting restitution are dissolved. These goals, in turn, cannot be met until policy makers confront and begin to resolve the inherent conflicts posed when a restorative sanction, such as restitution, is pursued in a criminal justice system that is primarily punitive in nature.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 697-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry R. Ruback ◽  
Alison C. Cares ◽  
Stacy N. Hoskins

The Office for Victims of Crime recommends that victims should be informed, consulted, respected, and made whole, rights that relate to informational, procedural, interpersonal, and distributive justice. We surveyed 238 victims in two Pennsylvania counties to test whether crime victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system was related to their perceptions of the fairness of the process and of their outcomes in their case, particularly with regard to restitution. Results indicated that payment of restitution, perception of fair process, and good interpersonal treatment were positively related to victims’ willingness to report crimes in the future but that satisfaction with information about the process was not. Victims’ understanding of the restitution process was a significant predictor of willingness to report in a multivariate analysis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 30-36
Author(s):  
MEERA MATHEW

The victims of crime are those who have formerly endured injury or are possibly suffering as an outcome of crimes having been committed. The direct family or dependants of the direct victims, who are harmfully affected, are also included within the meaning of the term “Victims”. The predicament of the victims does not finish with the crime but it persists. It may even increase, following the crimes; since they have to face the rigors of the actuality, such as deficient support system, dearth of social backing, and sense of anxiety. They also experience the intricacy of police inquiry, magisterial investigation and criminal trial. The impact of victimization on different kinds of victims due to different types of crimes has been varied such as physical, psychological and financial. Through this paper writer has endeavored to check the situation of victims of crime in India and the criminal justice system. It is apparent that the desolation of the victims have not been effectively addressed or even gone out of contemplation. Victims are disregarded, may, forgotten. The paper also stresses the need to provide support to crime victims. The author of the present paper has also recommended some of the imperative steps that are to be implemented by the law enforcement agencies in India to improve the position of victims in the criminal justice system.


1998 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion E.I. Brienen ◽  
Ernestine H. Hoegen

In 1994 Tilburg University in the Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Justice launched a four-year research project on the implementation of Recommendation R (85) 11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure. Many of the guidelines encompassed by the Recommendation deal with information. In this article, which is based on interim results of the Dutch research, the focus is on the formal and actual implementation in several different countries of the guidelines concerning information that the criminal justice system should provide to the victim. Different information systems are compared and some of the problems encountered in practice are identified. Where possible, causes and solutions are suggested.


2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
pp. 50-68
Author(s):  
Wanodyo Sulistyani

Lack of attention to environmental crime victims under criminal justice system has led to the development of the study of environmental victimology. This study focuses to acknowledge victims’ losses as an impact of environmental crime and victimizationprocess. In the study of criminology, environmental crime is generated by environmental damaging activities, such as pollution, illegal hazardous substances dumping, land burning, illegal logging, etc. The damaging activities inflict harms not merely to the sustainability of the environment, but also to human and other creatures. Environment degradation has caused issues on health, economic, social, and cultural, as well as inequality. However, in some incidents, environmental crime is endorsed by state; the fact has created complexity in dealing with the crime. Furthermore, environmental crime is also related to other forms of crime, such as corruption and money laundering. Therefore, a multi-doors approach is established by involving several institutions to investigate the crimes. However, the approach does not sufficiently restore victims’ losses. The environmental victimology study is expected to enable criminal justice system to accommodate environmental crime victim’s interests for restitution or compensation. Therefore, this article overviews the widespread environmental crimes and the rise of attention to this issue. Consequently, it also describes the issue on criminal law enforcement to environmental crimes. Furthermore, it reviews environmental victimology study and the process of environmental victimization. Lastly, it analyzes the importance of environmental victimology study in arranging a policy on restoring the victims’ losses. The study employed normative legal research by applying statutory, comparative, and case study approaches.


Temida ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo-Anne Wemmers

In this paper the author argues that victims? rights are human rights. Criminal law typically views victims as witnesses to a crime against the state, thus shutting them out of the criminal justice process and only allowing them in when they are needed to testify. This is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims who seek validation in the criminal justice system. Victims are persons with rights and privileges. Crimes constitute violations of their rights as well as acts against society or the state. While human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not mention crime victims specifically, a number of rights are identified, which can be viewed from the victim?s perspective. As individuals with dignity, victims have the right to recognition as persons before the law. However, such rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 379
Author(s):  
Rena Yulia

Protection of victims of crime is part of the protection of human rights as a whole. The protection that provided was the responsibility of the state that has been manifested in a criminal law policy. The ultimate goal of the criminal law policy is the social defence to achieve the overriding goal of social welfare. Criminal law policy is basically also an integral part of social policy. Criminal Law Policy in Indonesia contained in implementation of the criminal policies through the establishment of statue such as the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and other organic laws which governing the criminal provisions in it. Criminal Law Policy was emerged from political law which integrated into the criminal policies that embodied in laws governing the criminal provisions. This essay is trying to discuss how criminal law policy in Indonesia that has been implemented, and how the criminal law policy in providing the protection of victims of crime through the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Currently, the criminal law policy regarding the protection of victims of crime has been regulated. But the provisions have not fully provides protection to victims of crime. It can be seen in Act No. 8 of 1981 on the Code of Criminal Procedure Act which gave more protection to the suspect than to the protection of victims. Furthermore, Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims provide better protect witnesses than victims. This is due to the Act appears to provide protection to witnesses incorruption cases. Keywords: the criminal law policy, the criminal justice system, protection of victims of crime.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shraddha Chaudhary

Abstract The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 were purportedly aimed at strengthening the criminal justice system and deterring child sexual abuse. The article demonstrates how both legislations were reactionary, enacted without considering the evidence available on the lacunae in the system they sought to reform. It problematizes and critiques the new offences and enhanced sentences anchored in age-categorizations, the increased mandatory minimum sentences, the unenforceable timelines for investigation and trial, and the reinforcement of the link between fines imposed on the offender and compensation for the victim. It argues that the new legal framework will only exacerbate the implementation hurdles of the old framework, leading to poorer prosecution outcomes. The article also critiques the introduction of the death penalty for child rape. It is argued that the move could expose victims to mortal danger and will create a baffling situation for Special Courts adjudicating de facto consensual cases. While the government touts these legislations as proof of its hard stance on child sexual abuse, this article demonstrates that they were nothing more than political gimmicks, meant to distract from the conspicuous absence of any effort towards systemic change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document