{"id":2413,"date":"2025-07-06T23:26:33","date_gmt":"2025-07-07T03:26:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/in-print\/volume-61-number-2-spring-2025\/towards-a-victim-oriented-criminal-process\/"},"modified":"2025-07-06T23:30:52","modified_gmt":"2025-07-07T03:30:52","slug":"towards-a-victim-oriented-criminal-process","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/in-print\/volume-61-number-2-spring-2025\/towards-a-victim-oriented-criminal-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Towards a Victim-Oriented Criminal Process"},"content":{"rendered":"

The figure of the victim has played a central role in the consolidation of a uniquely punitive criminal legal system. Over the last decades, however, multiple actors have raised serious concerns about the benefits of this punitive strategy. In particular, U.S. penal abolitionists have called to abandon the current state-driven response to crimes primarily concerned with the imposition of harsh punishment. Instead, they advocate for implementing alternative non-punitive response mechanisms that address the harm crimes inflict on victims and the wider community. In response to these demands, abolitionists have proposed a series of \u201c<\/span>non-reformist reforms\u201d <\/span>to unravel the punitive logic that underlies the institutional response to crimes. Despite the merits of abolitionists\u2019 proposals, it is reasonable to assume that criminal trials will continue to be a necessary alternative when responding to crimes. Thus, questions about victims\u2019 role in this institutional setting continue to be relevant. Against this backdrop, this Article\u2019s primary goal is to rethink the scope and aims of the adversarial criminal process in light of victims\u2019 quest for recognition. In doing so, this Article contributes to ongoing discussions in three distinctive ways. First, it probes the normative grounds for shifting towards a victim-oriented criminal process. Second, it explores the implications of this shift for the design and structure of the adversarial process. Finally, it analyzes the merits of this shift in light of contemporary critiques of the criminal legal system.<\/p>\n

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I critically examines the prevailing portrayal of victims as inherently weak and punitive individuals to illustrate the limits of this narrative. Building on Nancy Fraser\u2019s work, Part II argues that victims\u2019 past and present demands can be better understood as part of a broader quest for recognition as full partners in social interactions. Under this theoretical framework, the Article advocates shifting towards a victim-oriented criminal process. This shift has two key implications. First, it puts victims\u2019 experiences, interests, and well-being at the center of the institutional response to crimes. Second, it affords victims meaningful participation in the legal proceedings. Part III analyzes the impact shifting towards a victim-oriented criminal process has before, during, and after a criminal trial. Specifically, it reviews these victims\u2019 duty to participate in the criminal process, reevaluates prosecutors\u2019 role and discretion, and discusses the application of victim impact statements. To conclude, Part IV analyzes the benefits and limits of the proposed shift towards a victim-oriented criminal process in light of abolitionists\u2019 demand to move beyond punishment when responding to crimes.<\/p>\n

Continue reading Towards a Victim-Oriented Criminal Process<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The figure of the victim has played a central role in the consolidation of a uniquely punitive criminal legal system. Over the last decades, however, multiple actors have raised serious […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15439,"featured_media":0,"parent":2404,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-2413","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2413","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15439"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2413"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2413\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2417,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2413\/revisions\/2417"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/american-criminal-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}