LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Doak, J; Henham, R; Mitchell, B (2009)
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Recent years have seen a number of developments pertaining to the notion that victims should be afforded a ‘voice’ in the criminal justice system. The theoretical and structural parameters of the adversarial system are not, however, conducive to exercising such a role. For many, conferring procedural rights on victims jeopardises the due process rights of the accused, as well as the public nature of the criminal justice system. In light of the recent decision to roll out the ‘Victims' Focus Scheme’ across England and Wales, this paper explores a number of issues of principle that arise – not least the deeper policy implications of an apparent re-alignment of the normative parameters of the criminal justice system to incorporate the private interests of third parties.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Jurisprudence (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, r1996).
    • 78 DB Wexler and BJ Winick, Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic i
    • 79 D.B. Wexler, ‗Therapeutic jurisprudence forum: practicing therapeutic jurisprudence: Psychol Pub Pol'y & L 193, who contends that TJ has not provided nsatisfactory a means of psycholegal soft spots and strategies' (1998) 67 Rev Jur UPR 317.
    • 80 See eg C Slobogin, ‗Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Five Dilemmas to Ponder' (1995) 1 Research-The American Society Of Criminology 2002 Presidential Address' (t2003) 41 Crim balancing therapeutic values with other goals in the legal process.
    • 81 L Sherman, ‗Reason For Emotion: Reinventing Justice With Theories, Innovations, And 1.
    • 82 See eg T Orbuch, J Harvey, S Davis, et al. ‗Account-Making and Confiding as Acts of Meaning in Response to Sexual Assault', (1994) 9 J Fam Violence 249; L Mills, ‗Killing her softly: Intimate abuse and the violence of state intervention' (1999) 113 Harvard L Rev 550.
    • 83 J Kellas and V Manusov, ‗What's in a story? The relationship between narrative completeness and adjustment to relationship dissolution' (2003) 20 J Soc Pers Relat 285.
    • 84 RD Enright and RP Fitzgibbons, Helping Clients Forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope (Washington, DC: APA Books, 2000).
    • 124 Faulkner, above n 14.
    • 125 See further J Jackson, ‗Justice for All: Putting Victims at the Heart of Criminal Justice?' (2005) 30 JLS 309, 313; Doak, above n 18, ch 1; M Hall, above n 98, pp 80-83.
    • 126 A Bottoms, ‗The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing' in C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article