Globalization and Victims’ Rights at the International Criminal Court

Wemmers, Jo-Anne; Brouwer, Anne-Marie de

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9020-1_12

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This general finding also applies to the particular context of crime victims participating in the legal system. Perceived benefits of participating in criminal justice procedures may be defined in terms of participating in the procedure, rather than decision control over the sentence (for example, Shapland et al, 1985; Wemmers, 1996; Wemmers and Cyr, 2004). In this regard, Erez (1990) argued that studies of victims’ opinions concerning the importance of the VIS have confirmed the conclusion that this right to deliver a VIS is viewed as important, regardless of its effect on the sentence outcome.…”

Section: Theoretical Notionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering a Victim Impact Statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive?

Lens

Pemberton

Brans

et al. 2014

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the delivery of a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) in court is assumed to contribute to the healing and recovery process of victims of violent crimes, its effectiveness to facilitate emotional recovery is widely debated. The current longitudinal study is the first to empirically examine the psychological effects of delivering a VIS in terms of the two most important emotional reactions after crime: anger and anxiety. It extends previous findings by showing that the debate concerning the effectiveness of delivering a VIS is not a ‘black and white’ matter. In this article, we argue that the question should not be whether delivering a VIS ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t work’ for the victim, but for whom, and under which conditions. We show that delivering a VIS does not give rise to direct ‘therapeutic’ effects. However, we found that feelings of anger and anxiety decrease for victims who experience more control over their recovery process and higher levels of procedural justice.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Notionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering a Victim Impact Statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive?

Lens

Pemberton

Brans

et al. 2014

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in the South African criminal justice system, criminal ‘restitution’ is defined as the return or repair of property by the offender ‘in order to restore you [the victim] to the position you were in prior to the commission of the offence’ (South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2008: 13-15). This was also the rationale given for the introduction of mandatory restitution orders in the Netherlands in the Terwee Act 1995 (Wemmers, 1996).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Redressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal redress in cases of environmental victimization: a defence¹

Hall

2016

International Review of Victimology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years growing concern has been voiced in the environmental justice literature regarding the ability of criminal justice mechanisms to adequately address environmental harms, especially when such harms are perpetrated by large corporations. Commentators argue that criminal justice processes are often ill-suited to the particular features of environmental cases, where the chain of causation between wrongful actions/omissions and environmentally harmful consequence can be very complex and extend over the course of many years. As an alternative, many such commentators now favour the adoption of more administrative resolutions when corporate bodies breach their environmental obligations (which may or may not amount to 'crimes'). Others favour the use of civil sanction regimes, which is now the preferred approach of the UK Environment Agency. In this paper I will argue that the debate on how best to respond to environmental harm has so far neglected to factor in the perspective of the victims of those harms and, in particular, their need for redress. I will argue that by incorporating such a perspective, as opposed to focusing largely on questions of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the criminal justice route still has much to recommended it, especially in relation to the provision of meaningful redress and/or compensation to the victims of environmental harm. Consequently, this paper will provide a victimological defence of the criminal justice process, and of criminal penalties, in their application to cases of environmental harms.

show abstract

“…A decade later another study examined the effects of legislative intervention designed to improve responses to victims by criminal justice authorities in the Netherlands (Wemmers, 1996). This research was more theoretical in its approach and explored procedural justice through a social psychology lens.…”

Section: Design Choices In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both individual- and group-level analyses extend this point to show justice as a multidimensional phenomenon that unfolds and opens in context as well as over time. It builds on earlier longitudinal justice research conducted in Britain and the Netherlands (Shapland, Willmore, & Duff, 1985; Wemmers, 1996) and contributes to the literature of mixed methods studies that use a longitudinal design (Plano Clark et al, 2015). The article also discusses persistent issues of how best to report complex findings as well as adequate representation of study participants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%