Locating Crime Victim in Criminal Procedure Ideologies G S Bajpai

Criminal justice models and procedural laws, despite sporadic changes, continue to be accused centric. This situation was protested and contested significantly by victimology movement world over and eventually the laws and procedure have been reoriented in some jurisdictions for balancing the victims position vi-a-vis offender. The victim based activism gave rise to an ideological change in the ideology of criminal justice policies and practices. Consequently, some consensus emerged in criminal justice policies and procedure to provide space for crime victims. We may describe these changes in terms of certain ideological positioning and model expressing the underlying approach. The status of rights of crime victims has been varying at different stages of development of society. In order to appreciate the present position, a recapitulation of the past would be in order. Historical Positioning of Victim Model Emergence of victimology in the 70s is credited to bring to the plight of crime victims to the fore by describing them as the forgotten entity in the criminal justice system. Once an active participant, common law systems had successfully managed to completely remove victims from the criminal justice process. Victims status got reduced to a witness to a crime against the state. During the eleventh century, the victim had a key position in common law and was responsible for the apprehension, charge and prosecution of offenders. This system was known a private prosecution and victims controlled every aspect of the judicial process including punishment (Kirchengast, 2006) Stephan Schafer (1968) refers to this period as the golden age of the victim

Professor National Law University, Delhi, India: gsbajpai@gmail.com

because victims exercised such an important role in the criminal justice process, which centered on the reparation of the victim. Interestingly, reparation of the victim was, according to Schafer (1968), an indication of how evolved a society was. For example, the Saxons and the Germans introduced the use of wergeld, which effectively meant that they renounced a vendetta after a murder or serious bodily injury, provided that the offender compensated the victim or his family (Schafer, 1968; Alline, 2001). The agreement between the victim (or the victims clan) and the offender put an end to any further violence (Viau, 1996). The advent of 13th witnessed the decline of the victims role (Kirchengast, 2006).The notion that crime was primarily a social threat rather than a harm done against the individual dominated this era. (Wemmers, 2003). The Kings peace and the development of offences against the security and public order offences, marked changes that impacted the role of victims (Kirchengast, 2006). Resultantly, the system of paying compensation to the victim was replaced by the offenders paying compensation to the state (Schafer, 1968). This practice still exists today and is referred to as a fine. Gradually, the state and its offices and institutions replaced the King but power was never returned to the victim. From the seventeenth century onwards, parliamentary sovereignty grew and the King became less influential personally. Instead he was seen merely as a figure of sovereignty. Laws were passed by the legislature and were no longer passed by the King alone. As a result, crimes ceased to be considered a violation of the Kings peace and instead were viewed as threats to civil society and social interests. This trend was further consolidated in the late eighteenth century with the introduction of criminological perspectives, which further moved criminal justice away from the victim to the security of society (Kirchengast, 2006).

Jan Van Dijk (1984) postion.

attributed ceratin influences on the victim of crime

movement which derive from specific historical contexts to explain victims The Care Ideology emphasizes humanist relief of suffering and community absorption of hardship. It views the criminal nature of the

offence as secondary and is critical of the bureaucratic and stigmatizing features of state welfare institutions. The Rehabilitation Ideology arises from a concern for treatment rather than punishment of offenders and sees aid for the crime victim as a part of this overall aim. The Retributive or Criminal Justice Ideology arises from disillusion with rehabilitative and deterrent penal policies. It aims to punish on a notional scale of damage to society (and to the crime victim). This ideology takes to itself the idea that the crime victim desires justice, moral vindication or revenge, and seeks participatory rights for the crime victim within the criminal justice system The Abolitionist Ideology advocates a new system based on principles of civil law. It proposes mediation, reparation, aid to the crime victim and crime prevention in communitys control. This ideology promotes the idea of informal social control over criminal behaviours. Idea of Justice and victim The central premise of this paper is that the idea of justice significantly changes and becomes far more inclusive when the victim of crime is enabled in the criminal justice process in terms of recognizing his rights, ensuring his participation and offering him comprehensive assistance at all stages of criminal justice process and subsequently for his rehabilitation. The idea of justice bereft of victim can not be treated as just and equitable. Ironically, the justice system which supposedly meant to satisfy victims need has hardly attended to the concerns of victims of crime effectively. What are the crucial questions in considering the victim in the frame of justice? The main issue deals with the fact that crime victim needs to be recognized as a person by the state prosecution as crime primarily affects individual and violates his/her fundamental rights. The criminal justice process considers victim as mere party . It is the cornerstone of the jurisprudence that victim as person suffers and get deprived by the affront of criminal act. Human concerns and need of crime victims in post victimization situation are rather overlooked or the criminal justice system (CJS) is not structurally created to attend to such

kinds of issues. Justice symbolizes to attend to the human sufferings in most compassionate ways. By placing the victim at the periphery of CJS, the claims of justice are denied and sense of justice becomes most elusive one. The present idea of justice alienates a crime victim in more than one ways. For instance, constitutional promise of equality before law is primarily denied when a crime victim and offender stand together in the CJS as their positioning as sufferer (disadvantageous and weak) and aggressor (resourceful and privileged) exposes imbalances before the trigger of criminal justice process. Infact having victimized, a crime victims is never at the equal footing to that of an offender and hence the equality before law is denied from this stage itself. Another crucial issue is that of participation. The criminal trial in this country does not confer party status to crime victim and hence individual participation in trial to affect significant decision is not possible. How justice to crime victims would be possible if they are not conferred with any expressed right like accused in pre trial process? Victim of crime on account of his/her status in CJS is like a subaltern. The

subaltern focus in conceiving and framing the victimological jurisprudence draws heavily from the radical, critical victimology and capture the central spirit of critical legal studies. Though all these perspectives have their own grounding in their respective disciplines but lately they all seem to converge in what is commonly known as postmodernism. Antonio Gramsci who perhaps for the first time used the phrase subaltern referred it to indicate the status of inferior rank. Lately, the connotations inherent in this expression have been applied to describe those disadvantageous sections who by any reason remain cut off from the main stream in asserting their existence and accessing the good of life. Again this subaltern position of crime victim defies the idea of justice in a democratic and free society.
The paper in subsequent paragraphs examines the role of various models of criminal procedure and the victims status and rights therein.

Fairness to Victim Model

Historically, like the idea of justice, fairness has largely viewed from the viewpoint of accused and the victim was rarely thought in this scheme. The whole chain of case laws and decisions of Supreme Court in India have evolved the idea of fairness and fair trial predominantly in the context of ensuring the protection of right of accused in the criminal justice process. Does fairness to the accused only? What does fairness mean to a crime victim? Wemers and Cyr (2003) argued that fairness is mainly about the management of uncertainty; when people are confronted with uncertainty in their environment, they turn to their impressions of fair treatment to help them decide how to react. In other words, fairness becomes especially important when people are faced with uncertainty. Victims are often unsure about the criminal justice process, what will happen with their case, and what role they will play. Victims have no formal control over the criminal justice process and according to Lind and Van den Bos (2002) uncertainty is increased in situations where people feel that they are not in control. Victims may also be uncertain and fearful about the reaction of their offender, whom they may fear will seek revenge. As they are confronted with a great deal of uncertainty, fairness may be particularly important to crime victims. Fairness is also about receiving a fir deal from law enforcement agencies soon after the incident. Anything that is likely to prejudice the offender is totally unacceptable in a fair trial. The same kind of yardstick is needed in case of crime victim as he also has many occasion where things go contrary to his interests and prejudice is caused.

Procedural Justice Model The whole question of granting the victim a space in the CJS is not that of welfare or empowerment alone rather it also of ensuring a procedural justice which is even available to the most dreaded terrorist. The procedural justice includes the concern, care, protection, rights, opportunity to speak, submitting his plea in person and question the processes which may likely to affect his interest.

There exists a procedural model where the concern of crime victims is underlined. Thibaut and Walker (1975) identified two determinants of procedural justice: process control and decision control. Process control refers to whether or not parties are able to

present information throughout the decision-making process. Later, this was referred to as voice (Folger, 1977) and since that time voice has been identified as one of the most stable findings in procedural justice research (Van den Bos, 1996). In later procedural justice studies, Tyler and Lind (1992) developed what they called the Relational Model of procedural justice. In their view, procedural justice has a normative value instead of an instrumental value, meaning that procedural justice has a value in itself. They emphasize the quality of the interactions between individuals and organizations like the criminal justice system.

Victims Rights perspective Victims do not enjoy expressed legal rights and protection in Indian CJS.

This is generally realized that that unless justice to the victim is put as one of the focal points of criminal proceedings, the system is unlikely to restore the balance as a fair procedure in the pursuit of truth. Generally, two types of rights are recognized in the continental countries in respect of victims of crime. They are, firstly, the victims right to participate in criminal proceedings (right to be impleaded, right to know, right to be heard and right to assist the court in the pursuit of truth) and secondly, the right to seek and receive compensation from the criminal court itself for injuries suffered as well as appropriate interim relief in the course of proceedings. Though the experiences vary from nations to nations. In India, these rights have not been very expressly and prominently integrated with criminal procedure. Criminal Procedure Models: Criminal procedure is applied aspect of criminal justice system. It is this segment that largely ensures the fulfillment of promise of justice to the parties in the fray. Depending upon the choices and priorities, criminal procedure tends to shape in distinct ideological positioning.

Way back in 1964 Herbert Packer suggested

crime control and due process

models of criminal procedure. According to the crime control model, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to suppress crime, which is controlled through the imposition of the criminal sanction against the convicted defendant. Conversely, according to the due process model, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to deal with criminal defendants in a just manner and according to constitutional standards (Packer, 1964). The CJS almost world over preoccupied with issue the protection of

constitutional rights of the accused. In the U.S. The Supreme Court,under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, began rendering decisions designed to protect the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly their fourth, fifth, and eighth amendment rights which were often infringed upon by the police while investigating facts of guilt. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means could not be admitted during a criminal trial; this exclusionary rule was issued to deter the police from violating an individuals constitutional rights during the investigation phase of the criminal process. Two years later, in Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states were required to provide defense counsel for defendants charged with felonies if they could not afford to hire their own attorney. That same year, the Supreme Court heard the case of Brady v. Maryland, (1963), in which the court ruled that prosecutors were required to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused. This series of Supreme Court decisions, which strengthened the constitutional rights of the accused, led to a perceived dichotomy of purposes within the criminal justice system. As debate arose over what the actual purpose of the criminal justice system was in light of these 1961-63 Supreme Court rulings, American legal scholar Herbert Packer became the first to create models, which could explain the changing nature of the criminal justice system. The US Supreme court made many decisions between 1965 and 1970 that were influenced by the theory of Packer. The rulings on these cases protected a defendants fifth amendment right against self-incrimination by establishing that the silence of the accused during trial could not be used as evidence of their guilt (Griffin v. California, 1965); protected the right of suspects to be

informed of their rights against self-incrimination and to their right to an attorney, including one appointed by the state if they could not afford one (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966); the right to protection against unreasonable search through the use of electronic surveillance (Katz v. United States, 1967) and stop-and-frisk searches (Terry v. Ohio,1968). They also involved the imposition of obligations on states to ensure speedy trials (Klopfer v. North Carolina, 1967); the right to protection against self-incrimination, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to confront and cross-examine the accuser (In Re Gault, 1967), as well as decisions that regulated the ability of the police to conduct searches incident to arrest (Chimel v. California, 1969), to obtain search warrants (Spinelli v. United States, 395 U.S. 410 (1969)), and guaranteed the right to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt (In Re Winship, 1970). The models suggested by Packer did not remain intact as there emerged considerable criticism of these models mainly on two counts: one, the models were either completely punitive or they had a total accused centric approach overlooking the concerns of victims. Criticism to Packers models led to the emergence of some more models. Infact, Packers was relevant to his time and space. He suggested these models in 1961 when criminal justice system was completely the offender or accused centric and more and emphasis was either on the protection of rights of accused or correctional approaches like treatment and reformation and rehabilitation. Beloof proposed third Model of Criminal Procedure The third model was proposed by Douglas Evan Beloof in 1999 and he termed it as victim participation model. This model recognizes that the law now acknowledges the importance of victim participation in the criminal process. The model comprehends important concepts reflected in the US constitutional amendments and statutes, such as fairness to the victim, respect for the victim, and dignity of the victim. Beloof was of the view that the Victim Participation Model provides an

opportunity to understand the laws granting victims rights of participation in

the criminal process. Beloof emphasized a participatory role for victims in the judicial system whereby victims would follow their own case through the criminal justice process, consult informally with the police and prosecutor, and address the court in formal proceedings. Thus, the victims role in the judicial system, according to Beloof, extended beyond that of a mere witness to a more active participant however, Beloof also noted that, while in many jurisdictions the victim is allowed to hire counsel to represent them with the approval of, and in cooperation with, the prosecutor, the victim still lacks party status during criminal trials and that the value of the primacy of the victim has made a very limited inroad into the trial process, which is reflected in the abilityin many jurisdictionsof the victims to attend the trial (Beloof, 1999:324). Kent Roachs Suggests Fourth & Fifth Models Soon after the publication of the Beloofs paper, Kent Roach in the same year (1999) published four models of the criminal process and perhaps he was at that point of time not aware of the Beloofs publication and therefore he mentioned only four models and not five. Kent Roach models are known as as victims right based punitive and non-punitive models. Normatively, the punitive model of victims' rights affirms the retributive and expressive importance of punishment and the need for the rights of victims to be considered along with the rights of the accused. The non-punitive model of victims' rights seeks to minimize the pain of both victimization and punishment by stressing crime prevention and restorative justice. Both punitive and non-punitive models of victims' rights promise to control crime and respect victims, but the punitive model focuses on the criminal justice system and the administration of punishment while the non-punitive model branches out into other areas of social development and integration. In brief Roachs punitive model prescribes that the purpose of the justice system is to assess the criminal sanction and punish a guilty defendant for retributive purposes. Conversely, his non-punitive model illustrates skepticism about the ability of the justice system to control crime and views its purpose as

administering restorative justice. Under this model, the system tries to minimize the pain of victimization and punishment.

Stickles Victim satisfaction Model as Six Model Stickles has made a study in Texas and showed that the participation of victim in criminal justice and his rights and privileges have come to stay and now the need is to see that the criminal justice agencies perform in actuality to the satisfaction of the victim as mandated by the enactments. According to Stickle, the proposed victim satisfaction model has the three following characteristics: 1. The crime victim has become a de facto party to the prosecution and takes an active role in the criminal case, moving the criminal justice system in the direction of the civil system. 2. The prosecutor assumes the role of representing the victim and makes decisions to satisfy the victims interests. 3. The attempt to satisfy the victims interests is a primary value of the criminal justice system. Critique of Criminal Procedure Criminal procedure was modeled after the over zealous concern of extending the protection to the accused in a system which was to run by the state agencies and the framers of the constitutions in all parts of the world were quite apprehensive of the fact that the powers in the hands of state agencies might be misused and should be fettered adequately by the procedure so that the accused does not experience any extra legal consequence. The apprehension was found to be correct as the instances violating the rights of accused in the criminal process mounted incessantly and the judiciary became tougher with these misadventures. Resultantly, one would find a whole lot of cases only depicting the law enforcement agencies and accused pitching at two different ends in an ever contesting position. Accused Rights and Victims Rights: Puzzling dichotomy

10

Victim centered activism is often criticized for the reason that it sounds snatching the rights of accused. It ought to be understood that victims rights must not be provided at the expense of accused rights. But in practice, to a certain extent, it amounts so. Before delving into this debate, a realistic appraisal of this situation would be in order. The over emphasis on accused tended to overlook the concerns of victims in pre trail or during trial stages. A close scrutiny of the procedural laws would confirm this matter that the accused has been provided with protection at all stages- pre trial, trial and post trial of the criminal justice. The accent was to the extent of adhering that let ninety nine criminals go unpunished but not one innocent should be punished. The protection to the accused seems meaningful but it has caused imbalances as much of the focus got diverted from the victim in this process. And this is the reason why the victim continued to be a marginalized entity in the system of criminal justice. The neglect of victim was never a willful act on the part of criminal justice agents. Rather, it came as procedural and structural corollary of the criminal justice process. This needs to be understood in the prevailing contemporary context. The two discernible phases can be attributed to this scenario. The first belonged to the time when criminal justice system was evolving. After the classical thinking in criminology that was revolting against a brutal and unjust system with its main concern to bringing judicial reforms for humanizing the justice system and to make it more rationale so that the accused does not suffer any injustice or unfair treatment. Consequently, the constitutions and the laws that were evolved in the wake had more robust arrangements and procedural safeguards for the accused. Even the second phase, which was dominated by correctional ideology, was offender centric and the criminologists and criminal justice professional were too occupied with the reformation of offenders. The entire policy thrust and programme development was therefore centered on offender and the victim was never in focus. This phase in India continued very long and that is why a huge space in Indian criminological studies is occupied by the correctional studies.

11

The two important developments in India, which ran concurrently and had a profound impact on improving the status of victim in criminal justice system, could be identified in the emergence of victim movement. It was a pro victim stance of the higher judiciary expressing into judicial activism and the genesis of human rights movement culminating into the setting up of institutions and shaping the policies. The sole key player for the cause of victims in this country has been the higher judiciary. The Indian judiciary realized it very well that in the absence of any specific victim based law, the protection and support to victim in the criminal process is difficult in natural way. The Indian judiciary therefore adopted a dynamic interpretation of various articles of the Constitution and delivered a number of path breaking judgments in the favour of victims. Infact in many such judgments, the judiciary for the first time in India suggested guidelines for securing the interest of crime victims. Human rights movement and victim The stress on human rights has surely brought the concerns of the victims at the fore. The movement in India got so intensified that it has not only resulted in significant policy implementation but also facilitated the development of many institutions of prominence. The civil society movement in this area also got its presence felt by championing the cause of victims in several ways. Indias progressive march towards a pro victim system of criminal justice diverted grossly again by situational compulsions that rocked the nation in the form of terrorism. Victim and Criminal Procedure Models: Critique & Conclusions In the parlance of Packer, due process model was the most ideological one. The constitutional ethos that were conceived in most sacred fashion in the Constitution and the procedural law provided for enforcement has soon created an impression amongst the law enforcement agencies that the balance expected to be held between the rights of citizens and keeping the crime under control often run contrary. This dilemma has resulted into several crucial issues. The

12

state agencies find the ground realities too pressing and harsh for realizing the ambitious ideals of constitution in utmost impartial fashion. The crime control model became more acceptable amongst state agencies as it tended to provide quick results ensuring the immediate requirements of crime control even at the cost of compromising the due process requirement. Criticism of Due process by Kent Roach vis--vis victims rights A book by Kent Roach in 1999 titled Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice raises the issue of the status of victims rights in the due process model. Kent Roach examined the recent developments in the Canadian debate on victims in the criminal justice system. Using Herbert Packer's crime control and due process models, Roach analysed the developments in the Canadian criminal justice system following the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and, from this, made predictions about the future of the criminal justice system. According to Roach, the crime control model dominated criminal justice discourse in Canada before the advent of the Charter. The Charter introduced due process rights for the accused and these new rights could at times frustrate the use of criminal sanctions. This set the stage for what Roach refers to as the new political case. In the new political case, due process claims by the accused are pitted against rights claims by victims. This book examines recent case law in which the due process rights of the accused were challenged by victims' rights. The 80's and 90's saw a rise in the concern for victims' rights and, throughout this period, a number of changes were made to the criminal justice system. Like Elias (1993) and Fattah (1991), Roach is critical of these changes. He argues that, while on the surface it may seem that these changes were aimed at improving the treatment of victims, many of the changes in the criminal justice system were intended to improve victim co-operation in the criminal justice

13

process rather than address victims' needs. Roach refers to this situation as the punitive model of victims' rights.

American Model The victim movement in the US has entered in third stage after passing through awareness and participation stages to stress rights of victims on legal footing. After the Task Force on Victims in 1982, in 1984, the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) was passed which established the Crime Victims Fund that is funded not by tax dollars, but by fines, fees and assessments in federal criminal cases. In 2002 the Crime Victims Rights Act was introduced. The Crime Victims Rights Act provides that victims have expansive rights to be heard in a victim impact statement presented orally or in writing at sentencing. The Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman has also been created in the US. The American Bar Association has long had a commitment to giving victims a voice in the legal system, establishing a Victims Committee as part of its Criminal Justice Section in 1976 to identify victim concerns and to make recommendations on victims interests in light of the constitutional rights of the accused and public safety concerns of society at large. European System In many countries of Europe the victim has a detrimental role in criminal proceedings. For example, in France, crime victims are entitled to become parties to the proceedings from the investigation stage itself. Victim becomes active player by assisting investigation and moving the court for appropriate directions when the investigation gets delayed or distorted for whatever reasons. A victim also has a dynamic role in trial. He may propose questions to the court to be put to witnesses produced in court. Victim can be provided with the right to act as prosecutor when the prosecutor fails to act diligently. He can supplement the evidence adduced by the prosecution and put forth his own arguments. The role of victim in the matters of deciding the grant or cancellation of bail, fixing up of reparation, compensation is also noteworthy in the French system. The French system being the inquisitorial one enable judges to protect the victim from many stressing situations.

14

Innovations in the UK A recent report (November 2009) by Sara Payne (a Victim Champion) in the UK adopted victim perspective in redefining the idea of justice. Payne said The most compelling theme throughout my time as Victims Champion has been the need to treat victims and witnesses as individuals, with individual needs. The crux of this approach lies in the fact that in the hard-core legal interpretation of crime and resultant harm to the victim becomes only an event which is seen by legal lenses where the victim tends to loose his or her identity as person or individual. Payne is of the opinion that putting victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system is a noble ambition but does it fit with the current role and remit of the CJS? In order to really put victims and witnesses at the heart of the system a new perspective is needed. We need to reconsider our definition of justice so it is not just for punishing a perpetrator and preventing further crimes. Wemmers find that there are three alternative strategies for victims. One

group of authors, such as Fattah (1998), believes that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997). An example of this approach is the Belgian system where, since 2005, victim-offender mediation is offered to victims and offenders at all stages of the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice process. An example of this approach is the newly established International Criminal Court which recognizes victims right to participate and to obtain reparation. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for the future. International Criminal Court & Victim

15

The ICC is the first international tribunal to give rights to victims. Inspired by the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, the ICC allows victims to participate in criminal justice proceedings and makes it possible for victims to obtain reparation through the court. Article 68, Section 3 of the Rome Statute states that, where the personal interest of victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Victims do not participate in procedures directly but through their legal representative. Fletcher lauds the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as the marriage of retributivist and victim-centric penal justifications. The Way Forward There are basic principles to guide the criminal justice policy towards a provictim stand. Similar principles form part of the Victim of Crime Act in the US. The following principles may also be relevant in the Indian context. (a) victims should be treated with courtesy and compassion and with respect for their dignity, privacy and convenience; (b) victims should receive prompt and fair financial redress for the harm that they

have suffered;
(c) victims should be informed of and should have access to services including social, medical, legal and mental health assistance; (d) victims should be informed about the progress of the investigation and prosecution of the offence, court procedures, the role of the victim in court proceedings and the ultimate disposition of the proceedings; (e) victims are entitled, where their personal interests are affected, to have their views and concerns brought to the attention of the court where consistent with criminal law and procedure; (f) victims and their families should be protected from intimidation, retaliation and harassment; (g) victims should have their stolen property returned to them as soon as possible after recovery by law enforcement authorities

16

(h) victims should be entitled to prepare a victim impact statement and have it considered by the court at sentencing; (i) victims should be entitled to be informed about the offenders status, including release dates, parole eligibility, and probation terms.

Based on this discussion, the need to research crime victim in the context of their placing in the criminal procedure and identifying the scope of addressing the concerns within it is the need of hour. The research now needs to create a victimological jurisprudence which could become a central thrust in the criminal justice policy and practices.

References

American Bar Association (1983). Guidelines for Fair Treatment of Crime Victims and Witnesses, American Bar Association (2004).Criminal Justice Section, Victims Committee, Restitution for Crime Victims: A National Strategy. Beloof, D. E. (1999). The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim Impact Model. Utah Law Review 289. Doak, J. (2005). Victims Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation. Journal of Law and Society. 32 (2), 294-316. Fattah, E. A. (2001) Victims Rights : past, present and future. A global view. In: Robert. Cario and Denis Salas (eds.) uvre de Justice et Victimes Volume 1. Paris: LHarmattan Sciences Criminelles. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kirchengast, T. (2006). The Victim in Criminal Law and Justice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Packer, H. L. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process, 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1. Payne, Sara (2009). Redefining Justice, London :SWIJ Roach, K. (1999) Due Process and Victims Rights: The new law and politics of criminal justice.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

17

Schafer, S. (1968). The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responibility. NewYork: Random House. Stickels, John W. ( 2008). The Victim Satisfaction Model of the Criminal Justice System Journal of Criminology& Criminal Justice Education & Research, vol.2.1. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tyler, T., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 115 191). San Diego: Academic Press Wemmers Jo-Anne & Cyr Katie ( 2006) : What Fairness Means to Crime Victims : A Social Psychological Perspective on Victim- Offended Mediation Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(2). Van den Bos, K. (1996). Procedural justice and conflict. Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Doctoral thesis.

CASES: Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Globe Newspapers Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596 (1982). Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967). In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

18