File #2790: "2019_Book_VictimParticipationRights.pdf"
Testo
1|Preface|7
1|Praise for Victim Participation Rights|10
1|Contents|12
1|Abbreviations|14
1|1 Victim Participation in Criminal Procedure: An Introduction|16
2|1 Introduction|16
2|2 The Focus on Victim Participation|18
2|3 Participatory Rights in National Criminal Justice|21
2|4 Introduction to Selected Jurisdictions|24
3|4.1 Inquisitorial Systems: Germany and France|24
4|4.1.1 Germany|25
4|4.1.2 France|26
3|4.2 Mixed Criminal Justice Systems—Sweden and Denmark|27
4|4.2.1 Sweden|28
4|4.2.2 Denmark|29
3|4.3 Adversarial Systems|30
4|4.3.1 Australia|30
4|4.3.2 England and Wales|32
4|4.3.3 USA|33
3|4.4 Scope of This Book: Victim Participation Rights Variations Across Criminal Justice Systems|34
2|Legislation and Related Sources|39
2|References|40
1|2 Victim Participation: A Historic Overview|46
2|1 Introduction|46
2|2 The Role of the Victim in Common Law Systems Until the Twentieth Century|47
3|2.1 England|47
3|2.2 Australia|50
3|2.3 USA|51
3|2.4 The General Role of Victims Under Common Law|52
2|3 The Role of the Victim in Civil Law Traditions Until the Twentieth Century|53
3|3.1 Germany|53
3|3.2 France|56
3|3.3 Denmark|57
3|3.4 Sweden|58
2|4 The Rediscovery of the Victim in the Mid-Twentieth Century|59
2|5 Concluding Remarks|66
2|Legislation and Related Sources|71
2|References|72
1|3 Victim Perspectives and Criminal Justice|80
2|1 Introduction|80
2|2 Criminal Theories|81
3|2.1 Traditional Criminal Justice Theories|82
4|2.1.1 Non-consequentialist Theories: Retributivism|83
4|2.1.2 Consequentialist Theories: Utilitarianism|86
5|General Deterrence and General Prevention|87
5|Specific Deterrence and Specific Prevention|88
5|Mixed or Hybrid Criminal Theories|89
3|2.2 Concluding Remarks: Victims in Traditional Criminal Theories|90
2|3 Contemporary Criminal Theory|91
3|3.1 Expressive Criminal Theory|91
3|3.2 Restorative Justice|93
2|4 Concluding Remarks|96
2|References|98
1|4 Victim Participation: Investigation and Pre-trial Decisions|102
2|1 Introduction|102
2|2 Decision Not to Investigate|105
3|2.1 Adversarial Systems: England and Wales, Australia and the US|105
3|2.2 Inquisitorial and Mixed Systems: Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden|107
4|2.2.1 Germany|108
4|2.2.2 France|109
4|2.2.3 Denmark and Sweden|110
3|2.3 Concluding Remarks Concerning the Non-investigation Decision|112
2|3 Decision Not to Prosecute|112
3|3.1 European Jurisdictions|113
4|3.1.1 Denmark and Sweden|114
4|3.1.2 Germany|115
5|Remedies Against the Prosecutor’s Decision to Dispense with Proceedings|116
5|The Court’s Decision to Dispense with the Case During the Intermediate Phase|119
4|3.1.3 France|120
4|3.1.4 England and Wales|121
3|3.2 Non-European Jurisdictions: Australia and the US|123
3|3.3 The Right to Private Prosecution|125
2|4 Decisions Relating to Pre-trial Detention and Release|128
2|5 Decision to Enter into a Plea Agreement|130
2|6 Discussion|133
2|7 Concluding Remarks|135
2|Legislation and Related Sources|140
2|References|140
1|5 Victim Participation: The Trial and Sentencing Process|147
2|1 Introduction|147
2|2 Participation at Trial|148
3|2.1 Germany|148
4|2.1.1 The Inquisitorial Trial Structure in Germany|148
4|2.1.2 Victims with a Formal Role|150
5|Participation as a PAP|150
5|Participation as an Applicant to the Adhesion Procedure|154
4|2.1.3 Victims Without a Formal Role|156
3|2.2 Sweden|158
4|2.2.1 The Adversarial Trial Structure in Sweden|158
4|2.2.2 Victims with a Formal Role|159
5|Participation as a Supporting Prosecutor|159
5|Participation as an Applicant to the Adhesion Procedure|161
4|2.2.3 Victims Without a Formal Role|162
3|2.3 Denmark|163
3|2.4 France|166
3|2.5 Adversarial Jurisdictions|168
2|3 Participation at Sentencing|171
3|3.1 Australia|172
3|3.2 England and Wales|174
3|3.3 USA|175
3|3.4 Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark|175
2|4 Discussion|176
2|5 Concluding Remarks|177
2|Legislation and Related Sources|180
2|References|181
1|6 Victim Participation Post Trial: Appeals and Early Release|188
2|1 Introduction|188
2|2 Post-trial Participation|189
3|2.1 Germany|189
4|2.1.1 Interlocutory Appeal|189
4|2.1.2 Appeal Against Verdict or Sentence|192
4|2.1.3 Early-Release Decisions|194
3|2.2 Sweden|196
4|2.2.1 Appeals|196
4|2.2.2 Early-Release Decision|196
3|2.3 France|198
3|2.4 Denmark|200
3|2.5 Australia|201
4|2.5.1 Interlocutory Appeal|201
4|2.5.2 Appeal Against the Verdict or Sentence|202
4|2.5.3 Involvement in Early-Release Decisions|203
3|2.6 England and Wales|205
3|2.7 USA|207
2|3 Discussion|208
2|4 Concluding Remarks|209
2|Legislation and Related Sources|211
2|References|212
1|7 Limits of Victim Participation in Adversarial and Non-adversarial Systems—A Case Study of Germany and Australia|216
2|1 Introduction|216
2|2 The Perception of Victim Participation in Germany|217
3|2.1 Traditional Understanding of Criminal Justice in Germany|217
3|2.2 Victim Participation—A Reconceptualisation of Criminal Justice?|220
4|2.2.1 Legislature’s Motives|220
4|2.2.2 Reactions Within the Legal Profession, Political Institutions and Scholarship|222
3|2.3 Possible Explanations for the Expansion of Procedural Rights|224
3|2.4 Possible Implications|225
2|3 The Perception of Victim Participation in Australia|226
3|3.1 Traditional Understanding of Criminal Justice in Australia|226
3|3.2 Victim Participation—A Reconceptualisation of Criminal Justice?|229
3|3.3 Possible Explanations for the Expansion of Procedural Rights|231
3|3.4 Possible Implications|232
2|4 Concluding Remarks|233
2|Legislation and Related Source|237
2|References|237
1|8 Victim Participation: An Enhanced Focus on Legal Representation for Victims|246
2|1 Introduction|246
2|2 An Enhanced Focus on Legal Representation|249
3|2.1 Status Quo of Legal Representation Schemes for Victims in Selected Jurisdictions|251
4|2.1.1 Germany|252
5|Legal Representation of PAPs|252
5|Legal Representation of Victim Witnesses|253
4|2.1.2 France|256
4|2.1.3 Scandinavia|257
4|2.1.4 United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland|260
4|2.1.5 United States|261
4|2.1.6 Australia|262
3|2.2 Merits of Introducing/Enhancing Legal Representation Schemes|263
4|2.2.1 The Introduction of Legal Representation Schemes|263
5|Protection Gaps|263
5|Enhanced Flow of Information, Support and Transparency|266
5|Greater Compliance with Existing Victims’ Rights|267
5|Compatibility with the Parameters of Different Criminal Justice Systems|268
5|Length of Trials|269
4|2.2.2 Problems with Existing Legal Representation Schemes for Victims|269
5|Funding|270
5|Information|270
5|Qualification of Lawyers|272
3|2.3 The Future of Legal Representation Schemes for Victims|273
2|3 Concluding Remarks|274
2|Legislation and Related Sources|277
2|References|278
1|9 Victim Participation: Review and Conclusions|282
2|1 Introduction|282
2|2 Historical Developments Regarding the Victims’ Role and Conceptualisation of Victims in Criminal Theories|283
2|3 Victim Participation in National Criminal Justice Systems: Review of Key Findings|286
3|3.1 Pre-trial Rights in National Criminal Justice Systems|286
3|3.2 Rights During Trial and Sentencing in National Criminal Justice Systems|288
3|3.3 Post-trial Rights in National Criminal Justice Systems|291
2|4 Possible Reasons for the Fragmentation of Victims’ Procedural Rights|294
2|5 An Enhanced Focus on Protection in the Form Legal Representation for Victims|296
2|6 Concluding Remarks|298
2|Reference|299
1|Index|300
1|Praise for Victim Participation Rights|10
1|Contents|12
1|Abbreviations|14
1|1 Victim Participation in Criminal Procedure: An Introduction|16
2|1 Introduction|16
2|2 The Focus on Victim Participation|18
2|3 Participatory Rights in National Criminal Justice|21
2|4 Introduction to Selected Jurisdictions|24
3|4.1 Inquisitorial Systems: Germany and France|24
4|4.1.1 Germany|25
4|4.1.2 France|26
3|4.2 Mixed Criminal Justice Systems—Sweden and Denmark|27
4|4.2.1 Sweden|28
4|4.2.2 Denmark|29
3|4.3 Adversarial Systems|30
4|4.3.1 Australia|30
4|4.3.2 England and Wales|32
4|4.3.3 USA|33
3|4.4 Scope of This Book: Victim Participation Rights Variations Across Criminal Justice Systems|34
2|Legislation and Related Sources|39
2|References|40
1|2 Victim Participation: A Historic Overview|46
2|1 Introduction|46
2|2 The Role of the Victim in Common Law Systems Until the Twentieth Century|47
3|2.1 England|47
3|2.2 Australia|50
3|2.3 USA|51
3|2.4 The General Role of Victims Under Common Law|52
2|3 The Role of the Victim in Civil Law Traditions Until the Twentieth Century|53
3|3.1 Germany|53
3|3.2 France|56
3|3.3 Denmark|57
3|3.4 Sweden|58
2|4 The Rediscovery of the Victim in the Mid-Twentieth Century|59
2|5 Concluding Remarks|66
2|Legislation and Related Sources|71
2|References|72
1|3 Victim Perspectives and Criminal Justice|80
2|1 Introduction|80
2|2 Criminal Theories|81
3|2.1 Traditional Criminal Justice Theories|82
4|2.1.1 Non-consequentialist Theories: Retributivism|83
4|2.1.2 Consequentialist Theories: Utilitarianism|86
5|General Deterrence and General Prevention|87
5|Specific Deterrence and Specific Prevention|88
5|Mixed or Hybrid Criminal Theories|89
3|2.2 Concluding Remarks: Victims in Traditional Criminal Theories|90
2|3 Contemporary Criminal Theory|91
3|3.1 Expressive Criminal Theory|91
3|3.2 Restorative Justice|93
2|4 Concluding Remarks|96
2|References|98
1|4 Victim Participation: Investigation and Pre-trial Decisions|102
2|1 Introduction|102
2|2 Decision Not to Investigate|105
3|2.1 Adversarial Systems: England and Wales, Australia and the US|105
3|2.2 Inquisitorial and Mixed Systems: Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden|107
4|2.2.1 Germany|108
4|2.2.2 France|109
4|2.2.3 Denmark and Sweden|110
3|2.3 Concluding Remarks Concerning the Non-investigation Decision|112
2|3 Decision Not to Prosecute|112
3|3.1 European Jurisdictions|113
4|3.1.1 Denmark and Sweden|114
4|3.1.2 Germany|115
5|Remedies Against the Prosecutor’s Decision to Dispense with Proceedings|116
5|The Court’s Decision to Dispense with the Case During the Intermediate Phase|119
4|3.1.3 France|120
4|3.1.4 England and Wales|121
3|3.2 Non-European Jurisdictions: Australia and the US|123
3|3.3 The Right to Private Prosecution|125
2|4 Decisions Relating to Pre-trial Detention and Release|128
2|5 Decision to Enter into a Plea Agreement|130
2|6 Discussion|133
2|7 Concluding Remarks|135
2|Legislation and Related Sources|140
2|References|140
1|5 Victim Participation: The Trial and Sentencing Process|147
2|1 Introduction|147
2|2 Participation at Trial|148
3|2.1 Germany|148
4|2.1.1 The Inquisitorial Trial Structure in Germany|148
4|2.1.2 Victims with a Formal Role|150
5|Participation as a PAP|150
5|Participation as an Applicant to the Adhesion Procedure|154
4|2.1.3 Victims Without a Formal Role|156
3|2.2 Sweden|158
4|2.2.1 The Adversarial Trial Structure in Sweden|158
4|2.2.2 Victims with a Formal Role|159
5|Participation as a Supporting Prosecutor|159
5|Participation as an Applicant to the Adhesion Procedure|161
4|2.2.3 Victims Without a Formal Role|162
3|2.3 Denmark|163
3|2.4 France|166
3|2.5 Adversarial Jurisdictions|168
2|3 Participation at Sentencing|171
3|3.1 Australia|172
3|3.2 England and Wales|174
3|3.3 USA|175
3|3.4 Germany, Sweden, France, Denmark|175
2|4 Discussion|176
2|5 Concluding Remarks|177
2|Legislation and Related Sources|180
2|References|181
1|6 Victim Participation Post Trial: Appeals and Early Release|188
2|1 Introduction|188
2|2 Post-trial Participation|189
3|2.1 Germany|189
4|2.1.1 Interlocutory Appeal|189
4|2.1.2 Appeal Against Verdict or Sentence|192
4|2.1.3 Early-Release Decisions|194
3|2.2 Sweden|196
4|2.2.1 Appeals|196
4|2.2.2 Early-Release Decision|196
3|2.3 France|198
3|2.4 Denmark|200
3|2.5 Australia|201
4|2.5.1 Interlocutory Appeal|201
4|2.5.2 Appeal Against the Verdict or Sentence|202
4|2.5.3 Involvement in Early-Release Decisions|203
3|2.6 England and Wales|205
3|2.7 USA|207
2|3 Discussion|208
2|4 Concluding Remarks|209
2|Legislation and Related Sources|211
2|References|212
1|7 Limits of Victim Participation in Adversarial and Non-adversarial Systems—A Case Study of Germany and Australia|216
2|1 Introduction|216
2|2 The Perception of Victim Participation in Germany|217
3|2.1 Traditional Understanding of Criminal Justice in Germany|217
3|2.2 Victim Participation—A Reconceptualisation of Criminal Justice?|220
4|2.2.1 Legislature’s Motives|220
4|2.2.2 Reactions Within the Legal Profession, Political Institutions and Scholarship|222
3|2.3 Possible Explanations for the Expansion of Procedural Rights|224
3|2.4 Possible Implications|225
2|3 The Perception of Victim Participation in Australia|226
3|3.1 Traditional Understanding of Criminal Justice in Australia|226
3|3.2 Victim Participation—A Reconceptualisation of Criminal Justice?|229
3|3.3 Possible Explanations for the Expansion of Procedural Rights|231
3|3.4 Possible Implications|232
2|4 Concluding Remarks|233
2|Legislation and Related Source|237
2|References|237
1|8 Victim Participation: An Enhanced Focus on Legal Representation for Victims|246
2|1 Introduction|246
2|2 An Enhanced Focus on Legal Representation|249
3|2.1 Status Quo of Legal Representation Schemes for Victims in Selected Jurisdictions|251
4|2.1.1 Germany|252
5|Legal Representation of PAPs|252
5|Legal Representation of Victim Witnesses|253
4|2.1.2 France|256
4|2.1.3 Scandinavia|257
4|2.1.4 United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland|260
4|2.1.5 United States|261
4|2.1.6 Australia|262
3|2.2 Merits of Introducing/Enhancing Legal Representation Schemes|263
4|2.2.1 The Introduction of Legal Representation Schemes|263
5|Protection Gaps|263
5|Enhanced Flow of Information, Support and Transparency|266
5|Greater Compliance with Existing Victims’ Rights|267
5|Compatibility with the Parameters of Different Criminal Justice Systems|268
5|Length of Trials|269
4|2.2.2 Problems with Existing Legal Representation Schemes for Victims|269
5|Funding|270
5|Information|270
5|Qualification of Lawyers|272
3|2.3 The Future of Legal Representation Schemes for Victims|273
2|3 Concluding Remarks|274
2|Legislation and Related Sources|277
2|References|278
1|9 Victim Participation: Review and Conclusions|282
2|1 Introduction|282
2|2 Historical Developments Regarding the Victims’ Role and Conceptualisation of Victims in Criminal Theories|283
2|3 Victim Participation in National Criminal Justice Systems: Review of Key Findings|286
3|3.1 Pre-trial Rights in National Criminal Justice Systems|286
3|3.2 Rights During Trial and Sentencing in National Criminal Justice Systems|288
3|3.3 Post-trial Rights in National Criminal Justice Systems|291
2|4 Possible Reasons for the Fragmentation of Victims’ Procedural Rights|294
2|5 An Enhanced Focus on Protection in the Form Legal Representation for Victims|296
2|6 Concluding Remarks|298
2|Reference|299
1|Index|300