Censure, blame and harms are central concepts in sentencing that have evolved over the years to take into account social context and experiential knowledge. Flexibility, however, remains limited as the current analysis in sentencing focuses on the offender while failing to engage with the state's contribution in creating wrongs and harms. This risks giving rise to defective practices of responsibility since the state can also contribute to their production. The following article presents a complementary and additional framework within sentencing to account for state censure, blame and harms. The framework is rooted in communicative theories of punishment that integrate a responsive understanding of censure and a relational account of responsibility.

No abstract

Crime victims and victims' advocates have for many years called for greater input into the criminal process, and in particular at the stage of sentencing. Today, victims in almost all common law countries have the opportunity to participate in the sentencing process, usually by providing information about the impact of the crime. This impact evidence is placed before a sentencing court in the form of a victim impact statement (VIS) or victim personal statement (VPS) as it is known in England and Wales. This article reviews findings from the last few years of data from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES) which was conducted by the Ministry of Justice. We review findings from the last administrations of the survey. In the most recent administration of the survey (2009-2010), less than half (43%) of victims recalled being offered a statement. Over the most recent three-year period (2007-2010), a comparable percentage (42%) of the victims recalled being offered the opportunity to make a VPS; almost half (45%) explicitly responded that they had not been given an opportunity to make a VPS. In addition, significant variation emerged across local justice areas. The percentage of victims reporting having been offered a VPS varied from a low of 29 per cent in London to a high of 63 per cent in Northumbria-a range of 34 per cent. These and other findings suggest that the VPS scheme is being inconsistently implemented across the country.

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, introduced by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, is portrayed as an important advance on the previous two Charters, particularly with regards to the complaints process available in cases where service providers breach these obligations. This article provides a detailed description of the Code's complaints process as well as its functioning in order to evaluate its efficacy. The methodology behind this evaluation comprises several interviews with members of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office and analysis of legal documents such as statutes, case law, reports and the relevant academic literature on victims. The article argues that the Code's complaints process is not an effective and adequate mechanism for victims of crime, since contrary to its aims, it is largely inaccessible, long, overly complex and does not provide sufficient guarantees of privacy and objectivity as well as adequate redress and remedies for victims when service providers breach their duties. Instead, victims of crime would benefit from the development of a new mechanism that is sensitive to their needs, values accessibility and objectivity and provides effective remedies to ensure redress and accountability.

No abstract

No abstract

The aims of victim impact statements (VIS) can be classified into two main categoriesinstrumental and expressive. These different sorts of aims are associated with different, and often conflicting, sentencing objectives. This article argues that the VIS regime in Canada remains a legal no man's land, with neither its role nor its aims being clearly defined and articulated. Indeed, recent appellate court decisions have shown a number of inconsistencies and conflicts in the instrumental and expressive purposes that VISs in Canada are meant to serve. Further, it is also argued, the proposed legislative amendments under Bill C-32 are not very promising, since this scheme also fails to clearly articulate the aims and rationales behind the statements and behind the proposed changes. It is shown, throughout the article, that VIS regime guidelines and parameters can take different shapes and forms, depending on the aims retained. Moreover, while a dualist scheme that reconciles instrumental and expressive aims may be possible, clarity would be necessary in order to craft adequate parameters. Certainly, more protective measures are necessary if instrumental aims are to be retained. Finally, having laid out the conceptual and foundational grounds required to understand the possible aims of VISs and how these different aims can shape the relevant parameters, the article proceeds by laying out an initial, more normative, proposal for a VIS multi-functional model inspired by evidence-based findings.

Over the years, the role of victims in the criminal process has considerably evolved in common law jurisdictions, particularly in the United States and England and Wales. These notable developments have varied greatly between these two jurisdictions. These differences are in great part attributed to the different forces and rationales behind the emergence of the early victims’ movements in these respective jurisdictions. Indeed, the movements in the United States and England and Wales adopted different philosophies, strategies, and members came from different backgrounds, which can account for the differences in policies. This article engages in a process of comparative distancing between the forces that drove the movements, as well as the context under which they operated in order to understand the different policies, legal responses and debates that relate to the role of victims of crime in the two selected jurisdictions.