Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice Process

2010 ◽  
pp. 599-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edna Erez ◽  
Julian Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Victim Participation

International and Comparative Legal Perspectives on Victim Participation in Criminal Justice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Manikis
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Common ◽  
Victim Participation ◽  
Historical Developments

Victim participation in common law has evolved across history and jurisdictions. Historical developments within conceptions of crime, harms, and victims in common law as well as the different victims’ movements provide an understanding of the ways that victim participation has been shaped in more-recent common law criminal justice systems. Victim participation in the criminal legal process has also given rise to various debates, which suggests that providing active forms of engagement to victims remains controversial. The forms of victim participation are also diverse, and the literature has provided typologies of victim participation. Forms of participation also vary across jurisdictions and the different stages of the criminal justice process, including prosecutorial decisions, pretrial and trial proceedings, sentencing, parole, and clemency. Finally, research that focuses on victim participation in legal traditions beyond the common law would provide an additional and important contribution to the field.

scholarly journals Taking trauma seriously

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Ellison ◽  
Vanessa E Munro
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Current Trial ◽  
Trauma Informed ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
Victim Participation ◽  
The Government

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.

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Relationship

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.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Tindak Pidana Pencurian Ditinjau Dari Kajian Victimlogi (Studi Putusan No : 20/Pid.B/2017/PN. Mdn)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50
Author(s):  
Jhovindo Sitorus ◽  
Rizkan Zulyadi ◽  
Wessy Trisna
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Article 5

Protection against victims of theft is a protection according to Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, all efforts are to fulfill rights and provide assistance to provide security to victims that must be carried out by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) or other institutions according to criteria. This protection is given at all stages of the criminal justice process within the judicial environment. The following are the rights of victims and witnesses in Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims Article 5. The research method in this paper is a normative method that collects library data. The results and discussion of this study is about the protection of victims of theft based on the decision number: 20 / Pid.B / 2017 / PN. Mdn, based on the principle or theory of justice is not fair because there is no restitution or compensation to the victim, and the judge's consideration is to pay attention to things that are lightening and burdensome and pay attention to the absence of justification and forgiveness reasons for imposing a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment for 2 years against the perpetrators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document