Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 187–203 | Cite as

Victim and Society: Sharing Wrongs, but in Which Roles?

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper discusses what kinds of conflicts arise when a crime has been committed, and with whom—and in which of their possible roles—the offender should be seen as having such conflicts. The possible roles of the victim are in focus, as is the constitutive role of the act of criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It is argued that while in the tort conflict the victim should be seen as a party qua him- or herself in a ‘fuller’ sense (and with full freedom on how to handle the conflict, including dropping it), in the criminal law conflict it is community, the ‘we’, that should be looked upon as the party to the conflict with the offender. The victim should not be seen as excluded from the criminal law conflict, though: to the contrary, he or she is a member of community and has an important role to play. This role, however, needs to be strictly defined in a way that gives the victim the function of a certain kind of representative for ‘us’, the community. This role should not allow the victim much room to influence how the criminal law conflict is handled. The model I am suggesting presupposes—I think, at least—that criminal law conflict and tort conflict should be handled together at the same trial.

Keywords

Victim Complainant Defendant Criminalization Sharing wrongs Community Punishment 

References

  1. Andenaes, J. (1952). General prevention—illusion or reality. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science, 43, 176–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. (1986). Punishment and compensation: Victims, offenders and the state. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 6, 86–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashworth, A. (1988). Criminal attempts and the role of resulting harm under the code. Rutgers Law Journal, 19, 725–772.Google Scholar
  4. Ashworth, A. (2005). Sentencing and criminal justice (4th ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, L. (1974). Criminal attempts and the theory of the law of crimes. Philosophy & Public Affair, 3, 262–294.Google Scholar
  6. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. In E. Fattah (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–40). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  8. Christie, N. (1992). Limits to pain (2nd ed.). Oxford: M Robertson.Google Scholar
  9. Daye, R. (2004). Political forgiveness: Lessons from South Africa. New York: Orbis; Edinburgh: Alban.Google Scholar
  10. Digeser, P. (2001). Political forgiveness. Ithaka, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Duff, R. A. (2007). Answering for crime. Responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  13. Duff, R. A., & Marshall, S. E. (2004). Communicative punishment and the role of the victim. Criminal Justice Ethics, 23, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duff, R. A., & Marshall, S. E. (2011). Public and private wrongs. In J. Chalmers (Ed.), Essays in criminal law in honour of Sir Gerald Gordon (pp. 70–85). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Feinberg, J. (1984–1988). The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, J. (1998). Crime: In proportion and in perspective. In A. Ashworth & M. Wasik, (Eds.) Fundamentals of sentencing theory. Essays in honour of Andrew von Hirsch. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hassemer, W. (1989). Grundlinien einer personalen rechtsgutslehre. In L. Philipps & H Jenseits Scholler (Eds.) Jenseits des funktionalismus. Arthur Kaufmann zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 85–94). Heidelberg: Decker & Müllerp.Google Scholar
  18. Hassemer, W., & Reemtsma, J. P. (2002). Verbrechensopfer. Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  19. Jakobs, G. (1991). Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre, 2nd edn. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Jareborg, N. (1996). Criminal attempts and penal value. De Lege. Juridiska fakulteten i Uppsala. Årsbok (pp. 117–134). Uppsala: Iustus.Google Scholar
  21. Lacey, N. (1988). State punishment. Political principles and community values. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lernestedt, C. (2010). Dit och tillbaka igen. Om individ och struktur i straffrätten. Uppsala: Iustus.Google Scholar
  23. Lernestedt, C. (2011). Brottsofferskepnader. In C. Lernestedt & H. Tham (Eds.), Brottsoffret och kriminalpolitiken (pp. 405–441). Mölnlycke: Norstedts Juridik.Google Scholar
  24. Madden Dempsey, M. (2011). Public Wrongs and the ‘Criminal Law’s Business’: When Victims Won’t Share. In R. Cruft, M. Kramer & M. Reiff, (Eds.) Crime, punishment, and responsibility. The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff (pp. 254–272). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, S. E. (2004). Victims of crime: Their station and its duties. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 7, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshall, S. E., & Duff, R. A. (1998). Criminalization and sharing wrongs. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 11, 7–22.Google Scholar
  27. Matravers, M. (2010). The victim, the state, and civil society. In A. E. Bottoms & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Hearing the victim: Adversarial justice, crime victims and the state (pp. 1–16). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  28. Mill, J. S. (1982). On liberty. Reprinted in penguin classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simester, A. P., & von Hirsch, A. (2010). Crimes, harms, and wrongs. On the principles of criminalisation. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  31. von Hirsch, A., & Jareborg, N. (1991). Gauging criminal harm. A living-standard analysis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal LawUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations