Recognizing Victims' Role and Rights During Plea Bargaining: A Fair Deal for Victims of Crime

Manikis, Marie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2869377

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere, however, there is a clear duty on legal professionals to ensure that victims are apprised of the victim statement scheme. For example, in Canada a provision in the Criminal Code makes it mandatory for a sentencing court to inquire of the prosecution whether the crime victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement 8 (see Manikis 2012; Roberts and Manikis, 2011). In addition, the prosecutor, the victim or someone representing the victim may apply for an adjournment to permit the victim to prepare the statement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey

Roberts

Manikis

2012

Criminology & Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey

Roberts

Manikis

2012

Criminology & Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this form of victim input, if it is allowed at all, is generally provided in common law jurisdictions at the sentencing stage through measures such as victim impact statements (Roberts, 2009: 357), it is worth highlighting that there are some instances where victims are nonetheless excluded from sentencing deliberations, and therefore information on the degree of harm they have suffered is unavailable to the sentencing party, for example with plea bargains (Manikis, 2012: 425), and through unwarranted exclusions of victims’ views ( In Re Dean 527 F.3d 391: 394–396). In these situations, plus where victims are afforded no earlier means of providing information relevant to harm suffered, victims as ‘information providers’ at the clemency phase can help with sentence recalibration.…”

Section: Normative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pascoe¹,

Manikis

2018

International Review of Victimology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses victim engagement with the executive clemency process from a normative perspective. The authors’ aim is to explore the existing models of victim participation in clemency decision making in common law jurisdictions, in order to determine whether these possess any sound theoretical basis. The article brings together the academic literatures on victim participation and clemency functionality in order to ground the analysis. In brief, the authors' main finding is that victim involvement in clemency decision making can indeed be supported by the theoretical literature, albeit to a more limited extent than is currently practised in some common law jurisdictions. In light of the theoretical underpinnings of clemency in democratic societies and the literature on victim participation, the authors conclude by making several ‘best practice’ recommendations for future policy-making.

show abstract

“…243 Plea negotiations often result in joint sentencing submissions accepted by courts. 244 That is not to say that joint recommendations are the exclusive or even natural fruit of the bargaining process. Joint recommendations are distinct and often unnecessary adaptations of the plea bargaining system that are specifically engineered to induce guilty pleas.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts On the Future Of Plea Bargainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bargaining for Expedience: The Overuse of Joint Recommendations on Sentence

Ireland

2014

mlj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

t is often stated that plea bargaining is an indispensable part of a fair and efficient criminal justice system. By observing sentencing hearings in the Provincial Court of Manitoba, this article shows that some form of plea bargaining is involved in a substantial majority of cases, that most joint recommendations on sentence are accepted by presiding judges, and that most of these joint recommendations are not "true plea bargains" in the sense of a quid pro quo being offered. It is argued that the vast majority of joint recommendations are born of cultural expedience rather than as a result of true plea bargains. These cultural joint recommendations encroach significantly on the judicial function and may erode public confidence in the administration of justice. The continued proliferation of cultural joint recommendations may further entrench a culture of expedience in our criminal justice system and could potentially lead to higher sentences. * David Ireland (B.A. (Hons.) (Ebor), LL.B., LL.M.

show abstract

Recognizing Victims' Role and Rights During Plea Bargaining: A Fair Deal for Victims of Crime

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey

Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey

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

Bargaining for Expedience: The Overuse of Joint Recommendations on Sentence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About