Advertisement

Victim Perspectives and Criminal Justice

  • Kerstin BraunEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology book series (PSVV)

Abstract

The two main traditional criminal theories, non-consequentialist and consequentialist theories, also frequently referred to as retributive and utilitarian theories, were developed to explain the basic underpinnings of, and reasons for, criminal law and punishment. They aim to justify state-based criminal justice in relation to the consequences for the defendant and for society on the whole. The theories have impacted the development of many domestic legal systems and their criminal justice responses to certain issues. While the two schools have been subject to criticism from varying perspectives, the chapter does not directly enter this aspect of the debate. Instead, it focuses on whether and how the theories in their classical form relate to victims of crime. This is done with a view to examining the possible impact of said theories on the general role of victims in national criminal justice. Subsequent analysis turns to more contemporary criminal theories developed with victims and their role in criminal justice systems in mind. Finally, the chapter ponders what the impact of criminal theory could be on the understanding of, and attitudes towards, crime victims in national justice systems today.

Keywords

Retributivism Utilitarianism Restorative justice Expressive criminal theory Consequentialist Non-Consequentialist 

References

  1. Achuti, D. (2017). Is a Critical Model of Restorative Justice Possible? A Penal Abolitionist Approach. In I. Aertsen & B. Pali (Eds.), Critical Restorative Justice (pp. 14–28). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M. D. (2000). Expressive Theories of Law: A Sceptical Overview. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148(5), 1363–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndt, A. F. (2017). Der Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich aus Sicht des Opfers: Theorie und Praxis einer alternativen strafrechtlichen Intervention unter Einbeziehung konsistenztheoretischer Annahmen. Muenster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bilz, K. (2016). Testing the Expressive Theory of Punishment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(2), 358–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blagg, H. (2017). Doing Restorative Justice ‘Otherwise’: Decolonising Practices in the Global South. In I. Aertsen & B. Pali (Eds.), Critical Restorative Justice (pp. 61–78). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bolivar, D. (2017). Deconstructing Empowerment in Restorative Justice. In I. Aertsen & B. Pali (Eds.), Critical Restorative Justice (pp. 29–46). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Buruma, Y. (2004). Doubt on the Upsurge of the Victims’ Role in Criminal Law. In H. Kaptein & M. Malsch (Eds.), Crime, Victims and Justice: Essays on Principles and Practice (pp. 1–15). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Ciocchetti, C. (2003). Wrongdoing and Relationships: An Expressive Justification of Punishment. Social Theory & Practice, 29(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dignan, J. (2005). Understanding Victims and Restorative Justice. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  10. Duff, R. A. (2005). Guidance and Guidelines. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1162–1189.Google Scholar
  11. Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Eds.), Restitution in Criminal Justice (pp. 91–129). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  12. Fattah, E. (2004). Gearing Justice Action to Victim Satisfaction Contrasting Two Justice Philosophies: Retribution and Redress. In H. Kaptein & M. Malsch (Eds.), Crime, Victims and Justice: Essays on Principles and Practice (pp. 16–30). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Flanders, C. (2014). Can Retributivism Be Saved. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2014(2), 309–362.Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher, G. P. (1999). The Place of Victims in the Theory of Retribution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galoob, S. R. (2017). Retributivism and Criminal Procedure. New Criminal Law Review, 20(3), 465–505.Google Scholar
  16. Gladfelter, A., & Ruback, B. (2017). Victims’ Needs and Restorative Justice. In C. Roberson (Ed.), Routledge Handbook on Victims’ Issues in Criminal Justice (pp. 197–210). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groenhuijsen, M. S. (2004). Victims’ Rights and Restorative Justice: Piecemeal Reform of the Criminal Justice System or a Change of Paradigm? In H. Kaptein & M. Malsch (Eds.), Crime, Victims and Justice: Essays on Principles and Practice (pp. 63–79). Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Hampton, J. (1992a). An Expressive Theory of Retribution. In W. Cragg (Ed.), Retributivism and Its Critics (pp. 1–25). Stuttgart, Germany: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
  19. Hampton, J. (1992b). Correcting Harms Versus Righting Wrongs: The Goal of Retribution. UCLA Law Review, 39, 1659–1702.Google Scholar
  20. Hoernle, T. (2006). Die Rolle des Opfers in der Straftheorie und im materiellen Strafrecht. Justisten Zeitung, 19, 950–958.Google Scholar
  21. Hoernle, T. (2017). Straftheorien (2nd ed.). Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals (M. J Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kaptein, H. (2004). Against the Pain of Punishment: Retribution as Reparation Through Penal Servitude. In H. Kaptein & M. Malsch (Eds.), Crime, Victims and Justice: Essays on Principles and Practice (pp. 80–111). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, K. C. (1983). A Critical Appraisal of Criminal Deterrence Theory. Dickinson Law Review, 88, 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. Lippke, R. L. (2006). Mixed Theories of Punishment and Mixed Offenders: Some Unresolved Tensions. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(2), 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luna, E. (2003). Punishment Theory, Holism, and the Procedural Conception of Restorative Justice. Utah Law Review, 2003, 205–302.Google Scholar
  27. McGonigle Leyh, B. N. (2011). Procedural Justice? Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, M. (1993). Justifying Retributivism. Israel Law Review, 27(1–2), 15–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, M. (1999). Victims and Retribution: A Reply to Professor Fletcher. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and Mercy—Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niggli, M. A. (2012, August 20–22). Security as a Goal of Criminal Justice. Presented at the Asian Criminological Society’s 4th Annual Conference, Seoul/Korea. Retrieved from http://www.unifr.ch/ius/assets/files/chaires/CH_Straf_und_Rechtsphilo/files/PDFs/NiggliSeoulSecurity.pdf.
  32. Pemberton, A., & Aarten, P. G. M. (2017). A Radical in Disguise: Judith Shklar’s Victimology and Restorative Justice. In I. Aertsen & B. Pali (Eds.), Critical Restorative Justice (pp. 315–330). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Peter, F. (2014). Verbesserung der Stellung des Opfers im Strafverfahren. Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovac.Google Scholar
  34. Plato, Protagoras. (1967). 324 a und b. In Plato in Twelve Volumes (W. R. M. Lamb, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universtiy Press; quoted in Niggli, M. A. (2012, August 20–22). Security as a Goal of Criminal Justice. Presented at the Asian Criminological Society’s 4th Annual Conference, Seoul/Korea. Retrieved from http://www.unifr.ch/ius/assets/files/chaires/CH_Straf_und_Rechtsphilo/files/PDFs/NiggliSeoulSecurity.pdf.
  35. Sautner, L. (2010). Opferinteressen und Strafrechtstheorien, Zugleich ein Beitrag zum restorativen Umgang mit Straftaten. Insbruck: Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  36. Schiemann, C. F. (2015). Die Beruecksichtigung von Opferinteressen in der Straftheorie. Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovac.Google Scholar
  37. Smart, J. J. C. (1991). Utilitarianism and Punishment. Israel Law Review, 25(3), 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Starkweather, D. (1992). The Retributive Theory of ‘Just Deserts’ and Victim Participation in Plea Bargaining. Indiana Law Journal, 67(3), 853–878.Google Scholar
  39. Sumner, L. W. (1982). Utilitarianism Reformed. Michigan Law Review, 80, 701–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Camp, T., & Wemmers, J.-A. (2013). Victim Satisfaction with Restorative Justice: More Than Simply Procedural Justice. International Review of Victimology, 19(2), 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Webb, S. D. (1980). Deterrence Theory: A Reconceptualization. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 22, 23–35.Google Scholar
  42. Wood, D. A. R. (2010). Punishment: Nonconsequentialism: Philosophy Compass (Vol. 5/6, University of Melbourne Law School Research Series, Paper No. 487). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1659453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations