Principles of Victimology | Justice for Crime Victims

Principles of Victimology | Justice for Crime Victims

There are some emerging principles in the field of victimology, such as; [1]

The Victim Centered Approach

In this approach, victim is taken at the center level with all focused. Although the system cannot heal victim’s trauma. However it can avoid further harm. It concerns on notifying victim of hearing dates or any change in schedule time for hearing dates and any case related process, providing information about the status of the spelled perpetrator, discussing decision about plea negotiation, and providing prime crime victim an opportunity to address the court before the sentenced is pronounced. Communities must adopt this approach, because it is a type of behavioral approach that everybody must show courtesies to the crime victim.

Real Justice Approach

There are different kinds of justice; distributive justice refers to the extent to which society’s institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society’s members in ways that are fair and just. A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. Yet a third important kind of justice is compensatory justice.

Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation in proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. Victim justice System concerns on the compensatory justice Compensation/Reparation, Restitution, Rehabilitations, Social Security, Victim/Witness Assistance/Protection, Financial Support, Counseling, and Mediation are the necessary tools for the real justice for crime victim.

During the past three decades, several justifications for victim compensation programs have been advanced in victimology ground. It implies that justice should not only be punishing or preventing but should be compensating the loss, because “justice is primarily a means to socio-co-operating and that social co-operation is primarily meant to promote the maximum happiness and well being of each and all. Individuals are most likely to trust and co-operate freely with systems whether they themselves win or lose by those systems when fair process is observed. The fair process does include engagement; Involving offenders/victims and their families in decisions that affect them by asking for their input so they can by asking for their input so they can tell their story, explanation; everyone involved and affected should understand why final decisions are made as they are.

Human Rights and Limit Risk Approach

Crime is the violation of basic human rights. The purpose of victim justice is to protect the rights of victim as a human rights approach. Right to life is the basic ground of humanitarian law. Rights not to be victimized, rights to be compensated against victimization in terms of financial/material compensation, reparation, rehabilitation, right to stand as a party on the failure/withdrawal of the state cases, right to be entitled for free medical treatment, right o free legal aid, right to be consulted before the decision is made for withdrawal of sub-judice cases or before to grant pardon, right to access to justice are the fundamental rights that must be ensure for crime victim.

Welfare State Approach

The modern welfare state is sought to achieved and ensured by punishing the accused in accordance with the provision of law. To ensure that innocent person may not be victimized, the accused found guilty he is punished and kept in prison with an object of reforming him. Courts have form time to time directed the state authorities to provide necessary compensation to victim. The functional justification for victim compensation is the ‘welfare theory’ arising from the assumption that the government exists and function for the people.Dussich, “The Challenges of Victimology.”

Parents Patriae Approach

Parents patriae is the legal concept from British common law connotes “ultimate parent”/ provides legal basis for the state to intervene on behalf of children. Parents patriae model is known as the welfare model. State is the guardian of all citizens. The main duty of government is to promote effective administration to secure safety and security of people at large. This notion is applicable to protect victim and provide them justice from state.

Justice for Crime Victim

In 1964, Herbert Packer introduced the “Due Process” and “Crime Control” models of the criminal justice system. Briefly, Packer’s Due Process Model is based on the concept that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to insure a true determination of guilt while Packer’s Crime Control Model is based on the concept that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to control crime. These two models have served as the standard foundation for understanding and discussing the criminal justice system and criminal justice policy. [1] One of the common factors between Packer’s Due process and Crime Control Models is they focus on the defendant with little thought given to the victim. The Due Process Model focuses on determining whether the defendant violated the law and insuring a true finding of guilt while the Crime Control Model focuses on determining the appropriate punishment for the particular defendant. There is little opportunity for the victim to participate in the prosecution under these models of the criminal justice system.

Similarly, some of the famous and important decisions made by US Supreme Court, such as Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384, U.S. 436 (1996) attracted an enormous amount of attention and highlighted the public perception that the criminal justice system was more concerned with releasing defendants based on legal technicalities than on the administration of justice. These decisions also underscored the perceived imbalance between the rights of criminal defendants and the lack of enforceable rights for victims. [2]

In the context, most of the criminal justice system, instead of being responsive to the victim’s actual needs, crime victim was considered merely as information of detecting culprit to the police, witness of proving beyond reasonable doubt to the prosecutor and subjected to cross examination to the defense lawyer and evidence to justify verdict to the judges. [3] Some victims have found that their treatment by the officials in the criminal justice system to be too stressful, demeaning, unfair, disregarding of their feelings, rights, needs and interests. Sometimes they see the system as a second victimization which can be more unpleasant than the original crime. [4]

Criminal justice system is comprised of crime, criminal law, police, prosecutors, judges, criminals, victims and courts. The main aim of the criminal justice is to punish offenders and provides compensation/reparation to the victim as well as to prevent potential offender from committing a crime. However, for many years, we have been taught that the two basic purposes of the Criminal Justice System are assuring a ‘true finding’ of guilt and controlling crime. In theory, a true finding of guilty is accomplished by guaranteeing that the defendant is dealt within a just manner by protecting the defendant’s Constitutional Rights-commonly referred to as ‘Due Process’. But the due process of criminal justice system overlooks victim involvement in prosecution and justice system.

The main reason behind the invisibility of actual victim in criminal justice system wa that in early 20th century many criminologist followed a positives idea of crime, which viewed that an individual’s criminal behavior was determined by certain social or biological forces, which they could neither control nor understand so the offenders were considered to be less responsible for their criminality. In this model the criminal is seen largely as a victim. At this point, criminal justice system tends to focus attention on offender rather than the needs of the actual victim. Early Marxist or left wing criminology often saw the criminal as victim, but in these writings the victimization is thought the use of power in labeling the offender, and in the bias of the way the law operates. The effect is again to make the literal victim invisible. [5]

Most of the criminological research of central government in Britain was interested only on the problem of crime and not with the problem of vulnerability. So, much of the early interest in victims in Britain came from non-government funded research, from victim support scheme, and from feminist writers on rape, sexual assaults and violence against women and children. [6] Today the interest in victims has increased and it became central subject to professionals, to officials and to the public. A variety of paradigm shifts, scientific advances, and social and political forces since the 1960s and 1970s provided a foundation from which theories of victimization emerged.

Radical criminologists have now started talking of protecting the interests of the victims of crime. This has resulted in the growth of victimology as a science. This is a science which, on the one hand, studies the degree and type of participation of the victim in the genesis or development of the offence, and, on the other hand, evaluates what is just and proper for the victim’s relief and benefit. [7] In the 1950s, an English reformer initiated a modern movement to bring the victim back into the criminal justice equation. [8]

The feminist movement of 1970s and 1980s forced attention on to new areas of criminal concerned such as rape, domestic violence, child abuse and sexual harassment. These served the purpose of moving attention at least in part of private home sphere instead of just the street and to recognition of many perpetrators as relatives or acquaintances not strangers. At the beginning of the 1970s there emerged in the USA a number of group concerned with: restitution or compensation for victims. During the decade of 1980s, the strong movement towards reorganization of victim’s rights in the criminal justice system has increased. This movement has been directed by two approaches; (a) First, is to increase participation of victim in the criminal justice system, (b) second, is to provide victim compensation.

These were taken up internationally by the United Nations in its 1985 charter for victim’s rights entitled Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. This charter first specified ways in which the victims should have access to judicial and administrative procedures, be treated fairly and with respect, be kept informed, be given right to counsel and have their views considered; secondly, encouraged restitution (or compensation) both by the offender and, where necessary, the government; and finally suggested ways in which the victim may need assistance to recover from the support services.

This declaration has recommended some of the measures to be taken at the national, regional and international levels to improve victim’s access to justice and fair treatment, restitution, compensation and social assistance for victims of crime. Similarly, there is Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witness of Crime (Resolution 2005/20 of the UN Economic and Social Council, 2005).

Likewise the European Council addresses the problem of victim’s rights and adopted the European Convention on the Compensation of Victim of Violent Crime, 1983. International Conventions like; ICCPR, 1966, CEDAW, 1979, CRC, 1989, CAT, 1894, and other conventions states on the victim’s rights, which are legally binding and State Party most comply with the provisions of these instruments.

The role, importance and visibility of the victim have varied greatly in human societies. These variations reflect the historical evaluation of legal concepts, as well as diverse approached to the interpretation of such notions as that of individual responsibility.

During the last several years, theorists have included accommodations such as fairness, respect, and dignity for victims in discussions about the purposes of the Criminal justice System. Criminal justice policy and procedure is changing to address victims’ issues, and victim input has become a significant part of all aspects of the criminal justice system. For example, many states have enacted victim rights legislation that provides victims an opportunity to participate in a prosecution through attending hearings and discussing the case with the prosecutor. This type of legislation would suggest that the victims’ issues have become important in the justice system since their status is recognized through legislation.

Justice for Crime Victim in Different Countries

In this section, the Researcher has highlighted on the movements for crime victim in UK, USA, India and Nepal and has examined the provisions for right to compensation and rehabilitation for crime victim in these countries.

UK

The most prominent legislation in England that showed concern for crime victims was Criminal Justice Act, 1972. According to this Act payment of compensation was the most appropriate action after the conviction of the offender. This Act was subsequently replaced by Criminal Court Act, 1973. This Act empowered the courts to make the compensation order under Section 35(1) “by or before which a person is convicted of an offence” and additionally the courts can make any other order it thought appropriate. It is important to note that this provision extended to not only personal injury loss or damage suffered by the immediate victim of the offence but also to persons indirectly affected by it, provided, of course, that a clear and casual connection can be established. The Criminal Court Act, 1973 also went through several amendments and lastly replaced by Criminal Justice Act, 1988.

Under the 1973 Act, the compensation order was entirely a matter of discretion of the court. But under the Criminal Justice Act, 1988, the courts had no such discretion to grant or not to grant the compensation to the victims. Further, the Act made it obligatory for the courts to record reasons for not awarding the compensation, even if it had a power to order compensation, but declining to do so. [1]

Apart from the compensation to the victim of crime by the offender, there is also a scheme which provides compensation to the victim of crime by the State. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced as an experiment on a non-statutory basis in the year 1964[2] to provide ex-gratia compensation to the victims of crimes of violence and to those hurt in their attempts to arrest the offenders and to prevent crimes. This scheme was revised in the year 1979, in which major changes were introduced to make it effective, so also the scope of the scheme was extended so as to cover the victims of family violence. The government of UK has introduced a revised Criminal Injury Compensation Scheme giving effect from 1979 on a non-statutory basis to provide ex-gratia compensation to compensate the victims of crime. Criminal Justice Act of 1988 replaced the earlier scheme with another placed on a statutory footing, with the consequence that eligible applicants now have an express legal right to compensation. The new scheme is based a closely on the earlier scheme, although certain adjustments are made.

The earlier scheme simply stipulated that victims of a crime of violence including arson and poisoning were eligible but the phrase was not further defined and its interpretation caused difficulty. Consequently, it sets out a new and more detailed definition of eligibility, intended to cover same broad group of victims. [3] Under the present scheme so also in the earlier scheme, persons who are injured in the law enforcement activity are entitled to compensation. The Act embodies provisions for victim’s compensation against various crimes, such as Rape, corporate offences, traffic violation, dangerous driving etc.

The concern for victims continued with launching of new schemes like ‘Victim Support’ and victim’s welfare. These schemes provided the victim various rights like right to be heard, right to necessary information for protecting his interest, right to be protected by the enforcement agencies, right to receive compensation and restitution, right to receive support and assistance etc. The Victim’s Charter, 1990 and Victim’s Charter, 1996 issued by Home Office provides for standards of service to be given to the victim and his family. It included right to be treated human dignity and respect, right to support and protection and right to compensation and reparation.

The compensation awarded through the State Funded Criminal Injuries Schemes which began in 1964 was modified in 1969, and 1990. Finally the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, 1995 established a new tariff approach based on types of injuries rather than individualized consideration of harm or damage. The Act set a standard fixed payment ranging from 1000 to 250,000 pounds depending upon the severity of injuries which were grouped into twenty five bands. The subsequent enactments in UK considered reparation as other mode of doing justice crime victims. The Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999 and the Power of criminal Court Act, 2000 are the legislations where the reparation to the victims is death with. The scheme of reparation is applied at three different levels in the criminal justice. At pre-prosecution, in between conviction and sentence and as a part of punishment to make the offender liable personally for his behavior.

In general, England and Wales have been able to take positive action toward rebalancing justice with no task force, no declarations and no framework decisions. By the time the Declaration for victims of crime was adopted in 1985, the government of England and Wales had already developed a network of victim assistant agencies (referred to as “victim support schemes”) as well as relatively generous criminal injuries program. The National association of Victim Support Schemes was set up by the British government to establish victims’ service standards across England and Wales in 1979. The British government also modified the restitution law so that restitution was to be paid before fines. In 1996 and 2004 this charter went to two further iterations. The British government didn’t stop there. In 2006, it adopted the code of practice for victims of crime will benefit from which services and the service providers. The minister of justice for England and Wales appointed a victim champion to advocate for victim’s issues and advise top levels of government on victim concerns. In 2008, Sara Payne was appointed the same who called for more integration between victims and criminal justice systems. In 2010, two new initiatives were rolled out to better serve victims of crime. One was to launch a National Victim service to build on a national network of victim assistance agencies and court based services. The second was to replace the rotating victim champion with a permanent victim commissioner to oversee the National Victim service. [4]

USA

The victims’ movement in the United States involved the confluence of five independent activities: (i) The development of a field called victimology, (ii) The introduction of state victim compensation programs, (iii) The rise of the women’s movement, (iv) The rise of crime that was accompanied by a parallel dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, (v) The growth of victim activism.

The importation of victimology to the United States was due largely to the work of the scholar Stephen Schafer, whose book The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility became mandatory reading for anyone interested in the study of crime victims and their behaviors. The idea that the state should provide financial reimbursement to victims of crime for their losses was initially propounded by English penal reformer Margery fry in the 1950s. It was first implemented in New Zealand in 1963 and Great Britain passed a similar law shortly thereafter. Early compensation programs were welfare programs providing help to victims in need. This was reflected in Justice A.J. Goldberg’s comment, “In a fundamental sense, then, one who suffers the impact of criminal violence is also the victim of society’s long inattention to poverty and social injustice…” [5] California initiate the first state victim compensation program in 1964, soon followed by New York. By 1979, there were 28 state compensation programs. By then, most had rejected the welfare precept in favor of a justice orientation in which victims were seen as deserving of compensation whether or not they were in need. Compensation programs also promoted involvement by victims in the criminal justice system since they required victims to report crimes to the police and to cooperate with the prosecution.

In America, there was a serious imbalance between the rights of offenders and crime victims. Despite the reliance on victims, the American Jurisprudence has emphasized its interest in favor of offenders. As a consequence the needs of the victims had become subordinate to the offenders. During the years 1960s and 1970s a movement for the victims’ rights started in view of extraordinary rise in the crime. The movement began as a coalition of various organizations seeking to redress the criminal justice system’s inadequate treatment of victims. Early in 1980 President Ronal Regan appointed a Task Force to investigate the crime trends and ascertain the position of victims in criminal proceedings. The Task Force in its report called for assistance for victims and recommended a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the victims’ right to be presented and heard at all the critical states of criminal proceeding and restitution in all the cases where victim suffered financial loss.

Prior to this Task Force Report, the notable legislation concerning victims was The Victim Witness Protection Act, 1982. This Act anticipated the recommendations of the Task Force Report and incorporated important provisions concerning victims’ rights which included restitution by the victim impact statements at sentencing of offenders. The Act also required the Attorney General to lay down the policies for the protection of victims and witnesses. Overall the Act assured a fair treatment for victims in Federal Criminal Justice System, by assuring his participation and protection from victimization along with restitution on priority basis.

There after the Victims of Crimes Act, 1984 referred was passed by which the Congress provided funding for victim assistance, victim compensation and training and technical assistance for victim service providers in the state. States responded by making suitable amendments in their respective laws. Then in the subsequent Victims Rights and Restitution Act, 1990, the Congress gave the crime victims a host of rights which included the right to notification of court proceedings and right to attend them, right to know the changes in the status of offenders’ detention, right to consult the prosecutors and right to protection from the offenders’ aggression. Later, during President Bill Clinton’s regime The Violent Crime Control Act and the Law Enforcement Act, 1994 gave federal victims right to speak at sentencing herrings, made restitution mandatory in sexual harassment cases and expanded the funding for the local victim assistance programmes.

The next important legislation, The Mandatory Restitution Act, 1996 authorized the federal judges to order full restitution from the offenders in the specific cases of fraud, property crimes, consumer product tampering and drug crimes etc. By 1998, 29 states have amended their Constitutions under the influence of the recommendations by Regan Task Force, granting new rights to victims which included right to speedy trial and right to participate in parole proceedings.

Finally there came the most important legislation advancing the victims’ rights in 2004, the Crime Victims Rights Act, 2004 (CVRA). The Act strengthened the existing federal crime victims’ rights provisions and its most important contribution is the creation of a judicial enforcement regime, including standing for crime victims to transform often illusory crime victims’ rights into meaningful, enforceable ones. The CVRA can be distinguished from earlier legislations and most state constitutional amendments and statutes in three areas: (i) It extended rights and remedies to victims of all infringements and violent crimes, (ii) It gave a significant right to participate at all critical stages of criminal proceedings and (iii) It provided judicial enforcement regime, which gave a right to victim to appeal against a violation of his rights immediately after the violation occurs to federal appellate courts and the same to be heard within seventy-two hours. The Act provides the following rights to victims; the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused, the right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding, the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding, the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case, the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law, the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy, the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. [6]

CVRA is a seminal contribution towards advancing crime victims’ rights through the creation of a new judicial enforcement regime. This results in increase of cooperation of victim with police, prosecution and judges. Further, the creation of new judicial enforcement regime has resulted in the new body of case law. In interpreting and applying victims’ rights, it has set standards to guide the conduct of trial judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other criminal justice officials. Moreover, provision regarding Victims’ Rights Amendment has been proposed for other states as well as for the Constitution of United States.

India

The Indian Constitution has several provisions which endorse the principle of victim compensation. The principles of victimology has foundations in the Indian Constitution particularly in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, which form the bulwark for a new social order in which social and economic justice would be ensured. [7] The Constitution illustrates that the state shall make effective provision for “securing public assistance in cases of disablement and in other cases of underserved want.” [8] The Article 41, which has relevance to victimology in a wider perspective, mandates, inter alia, that the state shall make effective provision for “securing public assistance in cases of disablement and in other cases of undeserved want.” Article 51-A makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment … and to have compassion for living creatures” and “to develop humanism.” This mandate expressly provided for in the Constitution, broadly forms the constitutional underpinnings for victimology. Further, the guarantee against unjustified deprivation of life and liberty has in it elements obligating the state to compensate victims of criminal violence. [9]

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has recognized the principle of victim compensation. It authorizes magistrates to direct complainants or information to pay compensation to people accused by them without reasonable cause. [10] It further empowers the court to order a person to pay compensation to another person for causing a police officer to arrest such other person wrongfully. [11] It also enables the court imposing a sentence in a criminal proceeding to grant compensation to the victim and order the payment of costs of the prosecution. [12] The plain reading of the section shows that sub-section (1) and (3) vests power on the trail court to award compensation and sub-section (4) gives power even to appellant or revision court to order for compensation. It demands that claim of compensation must be accompanied by following conditions. Loss or injury suffered. Loss or injury must be caused by the offence, and such person can recover the compensation in a civil court. Sub section (3) empowers the court, in its discretion, to order accuse to pay compensation. This is on the discretion of the sentencing court and is to be paid out of the fine recovered. The court may award compensation to the victim of crime at the time of passing judgment, if it considers appropriate in a particular case in the interest of justice.

These provisions make the trial courts and the appellate courts competent to award compensation to the victims of crime only after trial and conviction of the accused. These powers to award compensation are not subsidiary to other sentence, but it is in addition there too.

According to Section 357, the Court is enabled to direct the accused, who caused the death of another person, to pay compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal accident Act, 1855, entitled to recover damages from ten person sentenced, for the loss resulting to them from such death which the accused person has been to sentenced. The object of the section therefore, is to provide compensation payable to the persons who are entitled to recover damages from teh person even though fine does not form part of the sentence.

The legislative framework in Indian regarding compensation to victim of crime can be trace through two major legislations i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Probations of Offenders Act, 1958 and Constitution of India. Probation of Offenders act, 1958 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are both subject to the court’s discretion but payment but payment under Code of Criminal Procedure is possible only when the act is both a tort and a crime.

The Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2008 and a new section 357A was introduced. The crux of the amendment was that the state governments come up with a compensation scheme for the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. It states that; every government in co-ordination with central government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffer loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. [13] It further states that whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded. [14] There shall be a Fund, namely, the Victims Compensation Fund from which the amount of compensation, as decided by the Delhi State Legal services Authority (DSLSA) or District Legal Services Authority shall be paid to the victims or their dependents(s) who have suffered loss or injury as a result of an offence and who require rehabilitation.

The looking at the practical limitations, in the provisions of s.357 regarding compensation to the victims of crime which worked as hindrance in the minds of the judges in awarding compensation to victims of crime, the Parliament has incorporated s.357A[15] in the Parent Act of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of amendment in 2008, S. 357A is indeed an advanced step for improving the plight of victims. The Amendment Act, 2008 also provides for right to appeal against an order imposing inadequate compensation.

The Criminal Law (amendment) Act, 2013 has inserted new offenses and its legal provision to Indian Penal Code 1860, there is a provision of justice for crime victim. The compensation payable by the State Government under section-357A shall be in addition to the payment of fine to the victim under section 326A or section 376D of the India Penal Code.

Though no separate law for victims of crime has yet been enacted in India, the silver lining is that victim justice has been rendered through affirmative action and orders of the apex court. Besides, many national level Commissions and Committees have strongly advocated victims’ rights and reiterated the need for a victims’ law. Studies on crime victims by researchers started in India only during the late 1970s. Since the 1980s, many scholars have conducted studies in victimology. [16]

Nepal

In early 1854, the General Code (Muluki Ain of 1910 BS) was introduced in Nepal considering it to be a milestone in the history of criminal justice. This was the first written and codified law in Nepal for both civil and criminal law matters, which prescribed punishments for criminal cases on the basis of caste hierarchy; it also recognized crimes such as forgery, offence against the humans body and life including homicide, abortion, theft, arson, sexual offences. Previously, punishment for the offenders was greatly influenced by religious and cultural practices, mainly by the doctrines of Hindu Law.

The Code was amended 13 times, and the most important contribution in the criminal justice administration of Nepal was the amendment of 1963, known as the Muluki Ain of 1963, which prevails till date to oversee all criminal proceedings. The Muluki Ain is divided into five parts, of which – Part IV deals with crime and punishment, which is again sub-divided into different chapters on looting, cheating, theft, arson, counterfeiting, illegal detention, kidnapping and hostage taking, and battery and homicide. This General Cod 1963 was secular in nature and for the first time in CJS history of Nepal; it adopted the principle of ‘equality before the law.”

Nepal has ratified the numbers of Human Rights treaties and conventions for respecting the dignity of people. At present victim’s approach of justice has been introduced in the CJS of Nepal. Criminal justice policy and procedure is changing to address victims’ issues, and victim input has become a significant part of all aspects of the CJS. The GON has introduced a significant number of policies, both legislative and non-legislative, to improve the situation of victims of crime. Nepal has faced a transitional period with a political change. The present Constitution, for the first time in Article 21 illustrates victim’s rights as a fundamental right. It states that Victim of an offence shall have the right to be informed about the investigation and proceedings of the case. It also states that Victim of an offence shall have the right to social rehabilitation and compensation as provided in law. These rights do not address all needs for all victims. For example, they have not been guaranteed with te right to medical treatment, right to be a party to discussion on the case being withdrawn, right to free legal aid, right to access to justice and so on. It is a weakness that suggests the Assembly was not convinced properly. It is however a significant development.

In 2001, Dr. Shankar Kumar Shrestha has published book “A Step Towards Victim Justice System, Nepalese Perspectives”, which plays vital role for the protection and promotion of victim’s right in the field of criminal justice system in Nepal. Some laws, such as; Section 49 and 50 of Evidence Act, 2031, Section 20 and 21 of State Case act, 2049, Section 2 (c), 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 25, 26 of Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act, 2064, Section 49 and 51 of Children Act 2048 as well as Section 4,6, 7, 9, 10, 11 of Domestic Violence (Offense and Control) Act, 2066 has provisioned on the rights of victim, such as; the rights to reporting case, right to representation in court, right to security, right to privacy, right to compensation etc. The provisions mentioned Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act, 2064 and of Domestic Violence (Offense and Control) Act, 2066 has spelled progressively on the special rights to crime victim in comprehensive way.

As such GON has enacted the National Minimum Standard, 2068 for the protection of the victim of Human Trafficking and Transportation. Besides that, section 184, 186, 109, 115 of the proposed criminal code and criminal procedural bill, 2067 has mentioned various rights to victim, such as; video testifying witness system, if witness victim are unable to come in court, he/she as; video testifying witness system, if witness/victim are unable to come in court, he/she can testify through written statement or video conference, it has mentioned the provision of justice along with compensation to the victim. There is another proposed bill on witness protection and victim protection, which has mentioned special provisions for victim and witness, such as; protection of witness, service, financial support, allowances, compensation, privacy, victim fund, victim compensation committee and victim protection recommendation committee, etc. These proposed bills of Nepal have incorporated various provisions illustrated in International Instruments and guidelines for the protection of victims’ rights. Likewise, many national level Commissions and Committees have strongly advocated victims’ rights and reiterated the need for a victims’ law. Victimology, victims’ rights and victim justice system are officially and academically accepted in most of the syllabus of PSC, Law Universities and various training centers like JSJTC, NJA and Nepal Police Academy. The Supreme Court of Nepal has made several decisions with reference to doctrine of victimology and issues pertaining to crime-victims. Now civil societies are actively involving in research on crime victims and advocacy for their rights in Nepal.

The provisions for the compensation for crime victim is scattered in different laws in Nepal. There is no separate law for victims of crime in Nepal. Different western countries have already adopted their crime victims’ compensation programs. In our sub-continent, even India, has recently taken initiatives to uphold the crime victim’s right to compensation.