Criminal Justice System and Victims of Crime - Essay Example

?Contemporary Responses by the Criminal Justice System towards Victims and Witnesses of Crime Very few victims and witnesses have any explicit, proper contact and interaction with the criminal justice system (CJS) because more than half of the total number of usual crimes is not reported to the police. For those victims and witnesses who have contact with the CJS, nevertheless, the manner they are treated and handled are likely to have a major implication for their capacity to deal with the crime (Crawford & Goodey, 2000; Dignan, 2005; Hall 2012). It could also affect their eagerness to report future offences and help the CJS assure the conviction of the perpetrators. Because most of the documented crime reported to the police by victims and/or witnesses, they evidently have a crucial role to play in the process of dispensing justice, especially in those cases where in the accused denies any culpability. Maybe unexpectedly, considering its reliance on the eagerness of victims and/or witnesses to cooperate, the response of the CJS towards victims and/or witnesses has beforehand been described, at least in common law systems, by disregard and every so often by careless and unsympathetic treatment. Nevertheless, recently, a string of victim-oriented programmes has been launched in the United Kingdom. This essay argues that victims and witnesses nowadays enjoy a much greater role and importance in the criminal justice system than in the earlier periods. The investigation by the Victims’ Champion for the Ministry of Justice of the response of the CJS to the victims and witnesses emphasised in its statement: “A great deal of positive work has been done to improve the support available for victims and witnesses but there is still a disparity between policy and reality for victims” (Easton & Piper, 2012, p. 188). This statement emphasises two concerns: first, that the victims’ role usually overlaps with that of witnesses whose cooperation is needed on behalf of the criminal justice system and, second, that in spite of an increasingly civic and consistent policy initiative for victims and witnesses, the practice is usually inconsistent. Historically, the role and position of victims and witnesses within the CJS in Wales and England evolved in three phases: the years related to the growth of compensation, 1960-75; the years related to the growth of particular programmes to assist victims and witnesses, 1975-80; and the era from the 1980s when victim assistance initiatives were established and a greater participation of victims and witnesses in the CJS was called for (Easton & Piper, 2012, pp. 188-189; Hostettler, 2009). The support for victims and witnesses in recent times has had two quite distinct features: first, it may be considered a victims’ welfare model, while the other procedure is to grant victims importance to affect results. Victims’ needs were firmly highlighted in Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead. Victims have been granted the opportunity to give a personal report to the court describing the impacts of the crime on their lives. In April 2006, a Code of Practice for the Victims of Crime was ratified (Easton & Piper, 2012, p. 189; Wahidin & Carr, 2013; Dignan, 2005). Nevertheless, in order to demonstrate how the response of the criminal justice system to victims and witnesses within the criminal justice system has improved in the contemporary period, it is important to look at the victims’ status within the CJS during the earlier periods. In particular, the ‘era of victim disenfranchisement’ emerged in the 19th century, roughly at the same time as the state started to take on the prime obligation for the trial of criminals instead of handing over the task to prosecution bodies, or to victims and witnesses themselves, as in the earlier period (Dignan, 2005, p. 63; Comwell, 2008). According to Comwell (2008), this reassignment of duties co-occurred with the launching of specialised law enforcement, whose duty was to investigate crimes and put alleged criminals on trial. Theoretically, the transfer of obligation for prosecuting criminals was indicated by the fact that offence from then on came to be seen mainly as a crime against the state, and by the fact that trials were conducted on behalf of the state rather than the victim/s. Even though these occurrences had several benefits for the victims, who were not liable anymore for carrying out their own investigations and trials, there were also disadvantages as regards their marginalisation. The consequent disregard for victims during this period became evident in their role, position, and right to redress. In the criminal justice system’s adversarial process there is only the defence and the prosecution (Gibson & Cavadino, 2002; Maguire & Pointing, 1988). Therefore, victims did not have any official position in the proceedings. They were not also granted the right to any special treatment on account of the damage or injury they may have encountered. The absence of any recognised position implies that in reality victims have not been regularly updated about their case. As scholars have emphasised, the violation of these ‘common courtesies’ (Dignan, 2005, p. 64; Karmen, 2004) has further discouraged victims to cooperate with CJS, and intensified their feelings of vulnerability and victimisation. Without any recognised status, the only task given to the victim was to disclose any information that may be needed in the case and, if needed, to give evidence in court in instances of a ‘not guilty’ appeal. In addition, the lack of any recognised status has implied that, if they were obliged to be present at the hearing, victims were not provided with any exclusive services outside those that were normally provided (Smith & Tilney, 2007). The absence of special services was indicative of the criminal justice system’s failure to understand or recognise the possible vulnerability of most victims and witnesses. Even during a formal hearing, the adversarial characteristic of the system has the consequence of putting victims at risk of scrupulous and, on occasion, intimidating questioning by the defence. This can usually lead to secondary victimisation perpetrated by the CJS itself. Ultimately, the absence of any recognised status suggested that the right to redress of the victim was similarly restricted during the period of disenfranchisement. Theoretically a victim may take a private prosecution, but most victims let the Crown Prosecution Service and law enforcement to make a decision whether or not to instigate criminal trial due to insufficient knowledge and resources (Walklate, 2007b). Before the victim-oriented changes in recent times, these decisions were made based on formal evaluations of what the public demands. In case of a conviction, the major concern confronting the court is punishing or sentencing the criminal. This decision was similarly based on public interest. Until lately, the victims’ demands and interests with regard to sentencing have been consigned to secondary considerations when verifying the interest of the public. No matter what a victim may have thought or felt about the sentence given to the perpetrator, it would not usually offer any immediate redress for the damage or injury they may have sustained (Goodey, 2005). Furthermore, the range for direct redress stays very restricted in spite of the fortification of the right of the victims to financial reparation from their perpetrators recently. Basically, the traditional criminal justice system has historically marginalised victims in a number of ways. It has failed to recognise the victims’ exclusive role and status stemming from the fact that they have endured damages as a consequence of the crime. This failure has been aggravated by holding back important information and a lack of enthusiasm to offer victims needed assistance. In addition, it has disposed victims of any official status in the trials apart from the very few instances when they were called for in order to work towards criminal justice objectives. It has also failed to offer any physical redress for the damages that they may have suffered. Consequently, victims have long been marginalised by the criminal justice system, and most felt even more victimised, oppressed, and neglected. Profoundly embedded as it was, the persistent marginalisation of victims and witnesses was recently subjected to intense scrutiny during the latter part of the 20th century. The Council of Europe has released a variety of statement concerning victims’ rights, concluding in the approval of a Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings in 2001 by the Council of Ministers (Dignan, 2005, p. 63; Newburn, Williamson, & Wright, 2007). It demands that legal institutions should respond to victims and witnesses courteously, update them about their case, respect their right to voice out their concerns during trials and to give evidence, and should also provide special services for at-risk victims. The formation of victim-oriented norms in the global community has been mirrored in the implementation of different forms of victim-based changes across a broad array of administrations. In Wales and England, the marginalisation process of victims within the context of the traditional CJS went on gradually at first, starting with the launching of compensation directives in 1972. In the 1980s, a sequence of different programmes by the Home Office demonstrated an increasing awareness of and concern for victims’ plight (Mawby & Walklate, 1994; Dignan, 2005; Hostettler, 2009). They comprised the publication of two Home Office statements: the first contains guidelines on the treatment of domestic abuse and rape victims, and the second urges criminal justice organisations to treat and handle victims with respect and dignity (Spalek, 2006). The government issued a White Paper in 2002—Justice for all—where in it enumerated three major considerations for reforms: first was the urgency to restructure the CJS on behalf of the victims; second was to furnish the prosecution and law enforcement with the means to put criminals on trial; and third was to adopt rigid measures against violent crime and delinquency (Spalek, 2006; Davies, Francis, & Greer, 2008). These were made public in the midst of extensive media hype, but the time spent to actualise these changes differs remarkably with the fast development in advancing the other two major groups of policy initiatives enclosed in the Justice for All. Hence, recommendations to enhance the success of the CJS in prosecuting criminals were specified in the Criminal Justice Bill, which was made public in 2002 and ratified in the following year (Walklate, 2007a; Kaptein & Malsch, 2004). Recommendations for handling more efficiently delinquent behaviours were declared in 2003. In the meantime, a Victims of Crime Bill was put on hold. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill was made public in December 2003. The Bill contained proposals for ‘[bringing] victims close to the centre of the criminal justice system” (Dignan, 2005, p. 63; Davies, Francis, & Jupp, 2003). Once ratified and carried out, the Bill will finally accomplish the slowly progressing victim reform initiative of the government, which it predicts will make sure that victims and witnesses are treated with greater respect and dignity within the criminal justice system that it was in the past. As demonstrated in the discussion, there were notable changes in the response of the criminal justice system towards victims and witnesses in recent times. In the past, all victims were marginalised within the CJS. Today, particular groups of victims are regularly updated about their case, treated courteously and sympathetically, given access to assistance, and given a certain extent of protection against threats and further victimisation. Today, victims are granted more opportunities to take part in the process of decision-making and influence the result of their own cases. Moreover, victims gained a much higher status in the criminal justice system recently. Victims are important not merely because they endure most of the harms of victimisation, but also because acknowledgment of this aspect has major implications for the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. In numerous regards, victims, when properly taken into consideration, become the mechanism whereby a completely more practical and efficient exercise of criminal justice may easily be visualised. In numerous regards as well, within the framework of restorative justice, the association between criminals and their victims, even though indirectly, becomes a crucial component of the criminal justice system. Because when negotiation between the victims and offenders can be initiated, the likelihood of constructive results is sizeable. Victims do not feel disempowered because they are granted higher status and criminals are given feasible ways of admitting culpability for their actions. Basically, the development of restorative justice has facilitated victim-oriented policy initiatives in the UK and elsewhere, for it argues that victims are an important component of the criminal justice system and hence should be treated with the utmost respect. This argument poses several issues that not only concern moral rights but also procedural rights within the criminal justice system. References Comwell, D.J. (2008) Doing Justice Better: The Politics of Restorative Justice. Winchester, UK: Waterside Press. Crawford, A. & Goodey, J. (2000) Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. UK: Ashgate. Davies, P., Francis, P., & Greer, C. (2008) Victims, Crime and Society. London: Sage. Davies, P., Francis, P. & Jupp, V. (2003) Victimisation: Theory, Research and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dignan, J. (2005) Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Easton, S. & Piper, C. (2012) Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibson, B. & Cavadino, P. (2002) Introduction to the Criminal Justice Process. Winchester, UK: Waterside Press. Goodey, J. (2005) Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practice. Harlow: Pearson. Hall, M. (2012) Victims and Policy-Making: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. Hostettler, J. (2009) A History of Criminal Justice in England and Wales. UK: Waterside Press. Kaptein, H.J.R. & Malsch, M. (2004) Crime, Victims and Justice: Essays on Principles and Practice. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Karmen, A. (2004) Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. London: Thomson. Maguire, M. & Pointing, J. (1988) Victims of Crime: A New Deal? UK: Open University Press. Mawby, R.I. & Walklate, S. (1994) Critical Victimology: International Perspectives. London: Sage. Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (2007) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, K. & Tilney, S. (2007) Vulnerable Adult and Child Witnesses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spalek, B. (2006) Crime Victims: Theory, Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wahidin, A. & Carr, N. (2013) Understanding Criminal Justice: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Walklate, S. (2007a) Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates. England: McGraw-Hill International. Walklate, S. (2007b) Handbook of Victims and Victimology. New York: Routledge. Read More