The article reviews the different ways in which victims can influence the course and outcome of criminal proceedings in different European criminal justice systems. The range is from some jurisdictions (such as Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal) where the victim can appear only in the capacity as witness, to others (such as Finland) where there is a general right to prosecute. Even in the systems providing victims with the greatest opportunity for participation, the victim in practice generally leaves prosecution to the public prosecutor. The article concludes by arguing that no one system is ideal from the point of view of the victim.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BienkowskaE.ErezE.(1991). Victims in the Polish criminal justice system: law and reality. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 000–000.
2.
BishopN.(1988). Non-Custodial Alternatives in Europe. (Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control; publication no. 14: Helsinki).
3.
van DijkJ.(1989). Recent developments in the criminal policy on victims in The Netherlands. In Changing Victim Policy (Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control; publication No. 16; Helsinki) pp. 68–80.
4.
ErezE.BienkowskaE.(1991). Victims’ rights and victims’ reality: the Polish experience. Paper presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Victimology, Rio de Janeiro, 25–30 August 1991(unpublished paper).
5.
ErezETontodonatoP. (1990). The effect of victim participation in sentencing on sentence outcome. Criminology, 28, 451–74.
6.
GaneC.H.W.StoddartC.(1983). Criminal Procedure in Scotland: Cases & Materials. Edinburgh.
7.
JoutsenM.(1987). The Role of the Victim in European Criminal Justice Systems: A Crossnational Study of the Role of the Victim (Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control; publication no. 11: Helsinki).
8.
KrainzK.(1991). Victims in Austrian criminal procedure. Paper presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Victimology, Rio de Janeiro, 25–30 August 1991(unpublished paper).
9.
LidstoneK.W.HoggK.SutcliffeF.(1980). Prosecution by Private Individuals and Non-Police Agencies.
10.
MaguireM.ShaplandJ.(1990). The ‘Victims Movement’ in Europe. In Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies &Programs (LurigioA.SkoganW.DavisR., eds.) pp. 205–225. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi 1990.
11.
ShaplandJ.WillmoreJ.DuffP.(1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Gower; Aldershot.
12.
UN (1984). Report of the Interregional Preparatory Meeting for the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on Topic III: Victims of Crime, A/CONF.121/IPM/4.
13.
UN (1985). Report on the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (A/CONF.121/L.18). New York: United Nations.
14.
WallerI.(1984). United Nations Declaration on the Protection and Assistance of Victims of Crime: Draft Explanatory Report and Draft Text (unpublished paper, 12 January 1984).
15.
WeigendT.(1985). Deliktsopfer und Strafverfahren. Freiburg im Breisgau.
