Which participants in the criminal justice system have traditionally been forgotten?

Abstract

Victims in common law jurisdictions have traditionally been unable to participate in criminal trials for a number of structural and normative reasons. They are widely perceived as 'private parties' whose role should be confined to that of witnesses, and participatory rights for such third parties are rejected as a threat to the objective and public nature of the criminal justice system. However, recent years have witnessed both a major shift in attitude in relation to the role of victims within the criminal justice system and a breakdown in the public/private divide in criminal justice discourse. This article considers the standing of the victim within the criminal trial against the backdrop of such changes, and examines the arguments for a more radical course of reform that would allow victims to participate actively in criminal hearings as they are able to do in many European jurisdictions.

Journal Information

Established as the leading British periodical for socio-legal studies, the Journal of Law and Society offers an interdisciplinary approach. It is committed to achieving a broad international appeal, attracting contributions and addressing issues from a range of legal cultures, as well as theoretical concerns of cross-cultural interest. It produces an annual special issue, which is also published in book form. It has a widely respected Book Review section and is cited globally.

Publisher Information

Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. Our core businesses produce scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising; professional books, subscription products, certification and training services and online applications; and education content and services including integrated online teaching and learning resources for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. Wiley has published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in all categories: Literature, Economics, Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace. Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. With a growing open access offering, Wiley is committed to the widest possible dissemination of and access to the content we publish and supports all sustainable models of access. Our online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Journal of Law and Society © 2005 Cardiff University
Request Permissions

Abstract

Popular debate about the appropriate place of victims in criminal justice decision-making tends to be couched in terms of 'balance'. This rhetorical device precludes a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by victim involvement. This article argues that an analysis of the concept of participation is more fruitful. I delineate four different participatory roles for victims, each envisaging a particular relationship between victim and criminal justice decision-maker. I then discuss a recent reform in England and Wales—the Victim Personal Statement Scheme—to illustrate the ambiguity that can arise in a victim's participatory role when governments pay insufficient attention to the issues underlying rationales for victim involvement.

Journal Information

The British Journal of Criminology: An International Review of Crime and Society is one of the world's top criminology journals. It publishes work of the highest quality from around the world and across all areas of criminology. BJC is a valuable resource for academics and researchers in crime, whether they be from criminology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, law, economics, politics or social work, and for professionals concerned with crime, law, criminal justice, politics, and penology. 

Publisher Information

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The British Journal of Criminology © 2004 Oxford University Press
Request Permissions

What are the fours roles an individual goes through in the criminal justice system?

What is the criminal justice system quizlet?

Which of the following are hardships faced by victims and witnesses?

Which statements consist of written or oral information about the impact of crime on the victim and the victim's family?