Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Victims and Plea Negotiations: Overlooked and Unimpressed

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Victims and Plea Negotiations

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology ((PSVV))

  • 716 Accesses

Abstract

There have been major changes to the role of victims in the criminal justice system over the past 50 years. Despite these changes, in common law jurisdictions, victims do not have ‘party’ status, nor do they have the power to intervene in proceedings. This chapter discusses the changing role of victims in the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on victims and plea negotiations. It then outlines the key terms and describes the sparse existing literature on victims and plea negotiations, including victim-focused reforms. The study methodology and vignettes that provided the framework for the focus group discussions are also detailed. Finally, we outline the six models of reform that form the basis of the Pivot and its structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An intervener is a person who is not directly involved in proceedings but who has been given a right to participate in the proceedings for certain purposes.

  2. 2.

    There has been some evidence of this occurring in Australia, where victims’ voices are incorporated into policy discussions, particularly in relation to domestic and family violence. The Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, for example, includes seven community members who have been victims of crime, alongside key justice stakeholders and victim service agencies. The primary function of the Committee is to provide advice to the Victorian Government on how the justice system can better support victims of crime, including in relation to policies, practices and service delivery. New members are appointed each year and a key focus is on the diversity of victim experiences and backgrounds.

  3. 3.

    Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary study of the law’s effects on the physical and psychological wellbeing of those involved in, or affected by, the justice system (King and Wright 2017, p. 20).

  4. 4.

    Appropriate dispute resolution refers to ‘a range of processes, other than judicial determination, in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them’ (King and Wright 2017, p. 95).

  5. 5.

    See https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/victimsofcrimeandabuseofpower.aspx.

  6. 6.

    ‘Nolo contendere’, or ‘no contest’, in US law refers to an accused person’s plea where the accused does not accept or denies responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment.

  7. 7.

    Victims of Crime Act 1994 (ACT); Victims of Crime Act 1994 (WA); Victims of Crime Act 2001 (SA); Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic); Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld); Victims’ Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).

  8. 8.

    See now Victims of Crime Act 2001 (SA), s 9A.

  9. 9.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 8(1).

  10. 10.

    See also Victims of Crime Act 2001 (SA), s 8; Charter of Rights of Victims of Crime, found in Victims’ Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), s 6.5; Charter of Victims’ Rights found in Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), Schedule 1AA, Division 2.

  11. 11.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(a).

  12. 12.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(b).

  13. 13.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(c)(i).

  14. 14.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(c)(ii).

  15. 15.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(c)(iii).

  16. 16.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(d).

  17. 17.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(e).

  18. 18.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9(f).

  19. 19.

    Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic), s 9A(a)(b).

  20. 20.

    Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic), ss 24(c), 36(3), 38(2), 43(3), 41(2).

  21. 21.

    Manikis (2017, pp. 68–70) distinguishes between procedural accountability, which focuses on criminal justice decision-makers’ procedural defects when they fail to observe rules that regulate processes, such as failing to consult a victim when required to do so; and substantive accountability, which allows the victim to challenge a decision made in error.

  22. 22.

    For example, the Centre for Innovative Justice’s (2019) study involved interviews with 18 victims and Hargrave and VSNZ’s (2019) study involved interviews with 32 victims.

  23. 23.

    Under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic), s 11, a close family member of a primary victim of crime is considered to be a ‘related victim’.

  24. 24.

    The recruitment process, the explanatory material and the process of consultation were developed and supported by the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety, the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, academic colleagues and Carmel Arthur, a member of Victoria’s Sentencing Advisory Council, who has herself been a victim of crime. Her partner, a police officer, had been murdered 22 years earlier.

  25. 25.

    Project Number 18223.

  26. 26.

    See Appendix 1 for a copy of the background document.

  27. 27.

    See Appendix 2 for a copy of the survey.

References

  • Alschuler, A. (1995). Plea bargaining and its history. In R. Abel (Ed.), The law and society reader (pp. 138–161). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balson, J. (2013). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Facilitating healing in crime victims. Phoenix Law Review, 6, 1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L., Fitzgerald, R., & Freiberg, A. (2018). Public opinion on sentencing and parole in Australia. Probation Journal, 65(3), 269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beenstock, M., Guetzkow, J., & Kamenetsky-Yadan, S. (2019). Plea bargaining and the miscarriage of justice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology (Online First). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09441-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bibas, S. (2012). The machinery of criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, E. C. (2009). Victims’ rights in an adversary system. Duke Law Journal, 58, 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, K. (2019). Victim participation rights: Variations across criminal justice systems. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S. D., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the ‘shadow of the trial’. Criminology, 52(4), 723–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carol, A., Brook, B. F., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., McEwan, J., & Pomerance, R. (2016). A comparative look at plea bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States. William and Mary Law Review, 57, 1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Innovative Justice. (2019). Communicating with victims about resolution decisions: A study of victims’ experiences and communication needs. Melbourne: Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K. K. (2016). Public approval of plea bargaining in Hong Kong: The effects of offender characteristics. International Criminal Justice Review, 26(1), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Doob, A. (1989). Public attitudes to plea bargaining. Criminal Law Quarterly, 32, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daicoff, S. (2013). Apology, forgiveness, reconciliation and therapeutic jurisprudence. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Journal, 13, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, J., & O’Mahoney, D. (2006). The vengeful victim? Assessing the attitudes of victims participating in restorative youth conferencing. International Review of Victimology, 13(2), 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, C. (2015). Crime Victims’ Rights Act: A summary and legal analysis of 18 U.S.C. §3771. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, I. (2004). An ambiguous participant: The crime victim and criminal justice decision-making. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englebrecht, C. M. (2011). The struggle for ‘ownership of conflict’: An exploration of victim participation and voice in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 36(2), 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E. (1994). Victim participation in sentencing: And the debate goes on…’. International Review of Victimology, 3, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Globokar, J., & Ibarra, P. (2014). Outsiders inside: Victim management in an era of participatory reforms. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., Jiang, J., & Laster, K. (2020). From Cinderella to consumer: How crime victims can go to the ball. In J. Tapley & P. Davies (Eds.), Victimology. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Euvrard, E., & Leclerc, C. (2017). Pre-trial detention and guilty pleas: Inducement or coercion. Punishment and Society, 19(5), 525–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, R., Bartels, L., Freiberg, A., Cherney, A., & Buglar, S. (2016). How does the Australian public view parole? Results from a national survey on public attitudes to parole and re-entry. Criminal Law Journal, 40, 307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A. (2009). Sentence indications for indictable offences: Increasing court efficiency at the expense of justice—A response to the Victorian legislation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 244–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A. (2012). Bargaining with justice: Victims, plea bargaining and the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic). Monash University Law Review, 37(3), 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A. (2016). Plea negotiations, prosecutors and discretion: An argument for legal reform. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 564–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2011). Bargaining with defensive homicide: Examining Victoria’s secretive plea bargaining system post law reform. Melbourne University Law Review, 35(3), 905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Freiberg, A. (2018a). Plea negotiations: Pragmatic justice in an imperfect world. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Freiberg, A. (2018b). Plea negotiations: An empirical analysis. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 544, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2003). The four pillars of justice: A review essay. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, R. M., Hessick, C. B., & Hessick, F. A. (2017). Civilizing criminal settlements. Boston University Law Review, 97, 1607–1660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. (2016). The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia: Report. United Kingdom: Churchill Memorial Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, P., & Victim Support New Zealand (VSNZ) (2019). Victims’ Voices: The Justice Needs and Experiences of New Zealand Serious Crime Victims—Research Report. New Zealand: VSNZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, D. (2019). Exploring victims’ interactions with the criminal justice system: A literature review. Dublin: Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, S. (2003). The relationship between public perceptions of crime seriousness and support for plea-bargaining practices in Israel: A factorial approach. Criminal Law and Criminology, 94(1), 103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, S. (2004). Plea bargaining practices: Less covert, more public support? Crime and Delinquency, 50(4), 590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, R. (2002). Victims and plea bargaining: victims of crime—Plea bargains, compensation, victim impact statements and support services briefing paper. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/victims-of-crime-plea-bargains-compensation-vict/10-02.pdf.

  • Jones, E. N. (2014). The ascending role of crime victims in plea-bargaining and beyond. West Virginia Law Review, 117, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, N. J., & Wright, R. F. (2017). The invisible revolution in plea bargaining: Managerial judging and judicial participation in negotiations. Texas Law Review, 95, 325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchengast, T. (2014). Participation of victims of crime in New South Wales court processes. Sydney, NSW: Victims Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchengast, T. (2016). Victims’ rights and the right to review: A corollary of the victim’s pre-trial rights to justice. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(4), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchengast, T., Iliadis, M., & O’Connell, M. (2019). Development of the Office of Commissioner of Victims’ Rights as an appropriate response to improving the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system: Integrity, access and justice for victims of crime. Monash University Law Review, 45(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, M. (2021). Plea bargaining, conviction without trial, and the global administration of criminal convictions. Annual Review of Criminology. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255.

  • Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A., & Zeleznikow, J. (2015). Negotiating about charges and pleas: Balancing interests and justice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(4), 577–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manikis, M. (2012). Recognizing victims’ role and rights during plea bargaining: A fair deal for victims of crime. Criminal Law Quarterly, 58(3), 411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manikis, M. (2017). Expanding participation: Victims as agents of accountability in the criminal justice process. Public Law, 1, 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manikis, M. (2019). A new model of the criminal justice process: Victims’ rights as advancing penal parsimony and moderation. Criminal Law Forum, 30(2), 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M. (1998). Plea bargaining: Ethics and politics. Journal of Law and Society, 23, 562–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M. (2007). Development of empirical research techniques and theory. In M. McConville, & W. Hong Chui (Eds.), Research methods for law (pp. 207–229). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M., & Marsh, L. (2014). Jury trials and plea bargaining: A true history. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConville, M., & Mirsky, C. (2005). Jury trials and plea bargaining: A true history. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, C. (1993). Politics and plea bargaining: Victims’ rights in California. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC). (2014). Encouraging appropriate early guilty pleas: report No 141. https://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-141.pdf.

  • O’Hear, M. (2007). Plea bargaining and victims: From consultation to guidelines. Marquette Law Review, 91, 323–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugach, D., & Tamir, M. (2017). Nudging the criminal justice system into listening to crime victims in plea agreements. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 28(1), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoff, J. S. (2014, November 20). Why innocent people plead guilty. New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty.

  • Rich, R., & Sampson, R. (1990). Public perceptions of criminal justice policy: Does victimization make a difference? Violence and Victims, 5(2), 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice, 16, 99–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S., Lawrence, J., Holder, R., Politis, A., & Graham, J. (2009). Fairness and equity for victims of crime: What do they want and why don’t they get it? Final Report (ARC Discovery Project DP0665417).

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (RCIRCSA). (2017). Executive summary and criminal justice parts I-VI. Sydney: Royal Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R., & Stuntz, W. (1992). Plea bargaining as contract. Yale Law Journal, 101, 1909–1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Advisory Council. (2018). Restitution and compensation orders. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the ‘wheels’ already invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 235–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdun-Jones, S. N. (2011). Plea bargaining. In J. Roberts & M. Grossman (Eds.), Criminal justice in Canada (4th ed., pp. 168–184). Canada: Nelson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdun-Jones, S. N., & Tijerino, A. A. (2002). Victim participation in the plea negotiations process in Canada: a review of the literature and four models for law reform. Canada: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdun-Jones, S. N., & Tijerino, A. A. (2004). Four models of victim involvement during plea negotiations: bridging the gap between legal reforms and current legal practice. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 471–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC). (2015). Victims of crime consultation paper. http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/content/victims-crime-consultation-paper-html-0.

  • Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC). (2016). Victims of crime in the criminal trial process: Final report. Victoria: VLRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victoria, Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP). (2019). Annual Report 18/19. Director of Public Prosecutions, Melbourne. http://www.opp.vic.gov.au/getdoc/0d3d39c4-72d6-4c71-99db-c6dbe6b9cc8a/OPP-Annual-Report-18-19-web-full-(final).aspx.

  • Warner, K., Davis, J., Freiberg, A., Spiranovic, C., & Cockburn, H. (2018). Aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing: Comparing the views of judges and jurors. Australian Law Journal, 92, 374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welling, S. N. (1987). Victim participation in plea bargains. Washington University Law Quarterly, 65, 301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemmer, J. (2008). Victim participation and therapeutic jurisprudence. Victims and Offenders, 3(2–3), 165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western Australia, Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP). (2018). Policy and guidelines for victims of crime 2018. https://www.dpp.wa.gov.au/_files/publications/Policy-Guidelines-Victims-of-Crime.pdf.

  • Wood, M., Lepanjuuri, K., Paskell, C., Thompson, J., Adams, L., & Coburn, S. (2015). Victim and witness satisfaction survey. London: Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/victims_witnesses/cps_victim_and_witness_survey_sept_2015.pdf.

Legislation

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Arie Freiberg

  2. Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Asher Flynn

Authors
  1. Arie Freiberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asher Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asher Flynn .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Freiberg, A., Flynn, A. (2021). Victims and Plea Negotiations: Overlooked and Unimpressed. In: Victims and Plea Negotiations. Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61383-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61383-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61382-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61383-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation