Victims and the sentencing process: developing participatory rights?

Making sense of the victim’s role in clemency decision making

“…Consultation is most appropriate if clemency is being considered for utilitarian motives. As highlighted above, if victims are conceived of as forming part of the public interest in prosecution decisions (Doak et al, 2009: 657–658; Manikis, 2018), a similar participatory logic holds if clemency is to be granted in the public interest. Yet even in this case, public involvement would ideally also include other participants and stakeholders.…”

“…Whether restricted by these caveats or not, very little normative, comparative or empirical literature so far exists on victims’ roles (if any) in the clemency process (most notably: Giannini, 2015; Lanier and Breslin, 2006; Sarat, 2004). This article narrows this gap in the literature, and aims to prompt further empirical and socio-legal research on this topic in the future, given that victims’ satisfaction with their role in the process is such a key justification for formal engagement (Doak et al, 2009: 653; Roberts and Erez, 2010: 248–249).…”

Hearing the voices of victims and offenders: the role of emotions in criminal sentencing

“…Yet the duty to shed light on the role and function of the VPS and VFS is not limited to the judiciary. Both initiatives were introduced citing a myriad of justifications and objectives, 133 and it is unclear whether they their primary purpose concerns boosting satisfaction levels (and/or therapeutic benefits) among victims, or whether they are simply intended to give the sentencer an improved picture of past events. It would be helpful for both stakeholders and practitioners to know how emotional harm might be specifically weighed alongside other factors in determining the overall seriousness of the offence.…”

Rape Politics, Policies and Practice: Exploring the Tensions and Unanticipated Consequences of Well‐Intended Victim‐Focused Measures

“…Indeed, moves towards greater victim recognition and participation have proved contentious, with arguments waging around the theoretical and structural parameters of the adversarial system not being conducive to exercising such rights. Doak, Henham and Mitchell (), for example, argue that attempts to provide a platform for participation within the adversarial system will result in inevitable difficulties for victims.…”

“…These concerns voiced by barristers resonate with Hall's () argument that discourses that place the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system are difficult to accommodate in practice, and often sit in tension with the realities of the adversarial approach. Such victim‐centric practices will result in difficulties for complainants (Doak, Henham and Mitchell ), as unrealistic expectations tend to feed into a lack of confidence and a culture of despondency, when those expectations are not met (see also Auld ; House of Commons Justice Committee ). At the same time, counsel paradoxically used the term ‘victim’ during the interviews, suggesting that the victim‐centric discourse has taken hold within the criminal justice system and has to be negotiated by practitioners themselves.…”