The assumption that by punishing the offender the victim receives 'justice’ is of dubious value today because of the decreasing number of successful investigations and the still smaller number of convictions in the criminal justice system. If the victim gets back his lost property he is lucky; if he is not harassed and humiliated in the investigative and trial procedures he should thank his stars. Given the sickening delay, corruption and technicalities in proof, many victims tend to keep away from reporting crimes and sometimes take recourse to private vengeance. Either way, the criminal justice system suffers in not being able to prevent crimes or to punish the guilty when crimes occur in society. The long-term implications of the …show more content…
(ii) Victims to be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.
(iii) Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes to be utilised to facilitate conciliated redressal of victims ' grievances.
(iv) Offenders should make fair restitution to victims (or their families or dependents) and restitution should be part of the sentencing in criminal cases.
(v) When compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources. State should provide monetary compensation to victims who suffered serious physical or mental injury for which a National Fund should be set up.
2.2 VICTIM COMPENSATION AND LAW IN INDIA
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) has for long recognised the principle of victim compensation. Section 250 authorises Magistrates to direct complainants or informants to pay compensation to people accused by them Without reasonable cause. Again Section 358 empowers the court to order a Person to pay compensation to another person for causing a police officer to arrest such other person wrongfully. Finally, Section 357 enables the court imposing a sentence in a criminal proceeding to grant compensation to the and to order the payment of costs of the prosecution. However, this is at the discretion of the sentencing court and is to be paid out of the fine recovered.
Though the principle underlying Section 357 of the CrPC is very much the
In this assignment I will be examining and investigating the effects of crime on individuals, communities and business and discussing the role of services that support victims of crime and witness. There are a lot of people and communities that are impacted negatively by crime. However in the public service, there are approaches used in order to reduce crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. This is done by using websites and wardens to keep track of recent crimes. Also I will be writing about how both public and third sector
This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of
Criminology is a field that has been researched prolong. Most of the information explaining crime and delinquency is based on facts about crime (Vold, Bernard, & Daly 2002, p.1). The aim of this paper is to describe the theories of crime and punishment according to the positivists Emile Durkheim and Cesare Lombroso, and the classical criminologist Marcese de Beccaria. The theories were developed as a response to the industrialisation and the modernisation of the societies in the 18th and 19th centuries and were aiming to create a rational society and re-establish social solidarity (Vold et al 2002, p.101). The criminological perspectives of crime and punishment will be discussed in a form of dialogue between the three theorists exploring
state prosecutor. (Lippman, 2007) The purpose of the civil action is to compensate you with
Like the media, the criminal justice system and organisations in and around the criminal justice system play a major contribution in the construction of an ‘ideal victim’. As stated by ‘….Rock (2006), Institutional practices shape the public representations and private understandings of victims of crime’. For instance, in Australia there are many organisations that help victims and their families of serious crimes. Although on the other hand, there are limited or no services available to victims of minor crimes.
‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main
In society, things are not as they seem at times. The criminal justice system was created to help deter crime and to punish those who break the law. Laws are put in place to be fair to all citizens. Your economic situation, gender, race should not become a factor for you to be given “due process”. Years have come and gone and the crime rates increases and decreases with the years. There have been many senseless killings and everyone has their point of view as to the causes. The focal point of this report will be the findings from the readings of, “The rich get richer and the poor get prison by Jeffery Reimer and Paul Livingston”. I will discuss the causes of the rise and fall of the many different types of crimes ; why the rise and fall of crime rates; what contribution has the criminal justice and or police system has contributed whether positive or negative; and lastly discuss which economic group ends up in prison and why.
The conviction of innocent people is perhaps the worst nightmare of a criminal justice system. sending someone to jail for a crime that he has not committed, without the system having been able to discriminate effectively against the author, is one of the main mistakes that can be committed and with very serious consequences for the life of the affected person and their environment, which can hardly be repaired with subsequent economic compensation. Unfortunately, comparative experience shows us that there is no criminal justice system immune to the possibility of making mistakes of this kind. On the contrary, in recent years, investigations have been carried out in several countries that show the enormous fallibility of criminal justice systems.
The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.
In our current criminal justice system, it would appear the offender has more rights than a victim, but the interest of victim’s rights is increasing. This paves a positive aspect in the criminal justice system for victim’s in the future. 2. Who should have the right to decide the punishment an offender receives?
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.
The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal
Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian
Observers have noted in recent years a shift in government policy toward what is perceived as ‘redressing the balance’ in criminal justice, to be more advantageous to victims and less so to the accused. (have implications for current exclusionary rules)
In today’s society, the level of punishment for crimes are decided and applied by the laws of every country. However, in recent years there has been an increasing sense that