Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
The role of the victim within the public criminal justice process has traditionally been one of supporting public prosecution. Without the victim's cooperation, police and prosecutors would neither be informed about the occurrence of crimes, nor be able to bring sufficient evidence to secure convictions or extra-judicial settlements. In Germany, for instance, about 90% of all prosecutions are initiated by private complaint.
Compared to what the victim gives the state, the state traditionally gives little to the victim. While the victim's procedural position has been strengthened in Germany in recent decades, namely by the expansion of the right to join the prosecution as a collateral complainant, procedural participation alone has not been sufficient to satisfy the victim's need to be made whole. Victimological research indicates that the victim has a profound interest in compensation of damages. However, since according to our traditional understanding, the victim's claims and the State's claims against the offender are inherently different in nature, they ought to be governed by different types of principles and proceedings. Doctrinally, the criminal courts settle the State's conflict with the offender, while the victim's conflict with the offender is a matter for the civil law and the civil courts. Therefore, the legal consequences of crime, it is believed, reflect primarily the needs of the general public and not the “private” interests of the victim (whether defined as to receive: compensation; reparation; satisfaction; vindication).
Dr. jur. (Freiburg 1990), LL.M. (Georgetown 1989), New York Bar (1990). Senior Research Associate, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg i.Br. The article represents a revised and extended version of the author's presentation at the Israeli-German Colloquium on Criminal Law Reform, Jerusalem, Dec. 1993. It also appears in (1996) 4 European J. of Crime, Crim. L. and Crim. J. 163–172
1 Meier, B.-D., “Umleitung der Geldstrafe für Zwecke der Wiedergutmachung”, (1991) 68 ZRP 69.Google Scholar
2 §§ 395 et seq., Strafprozessordnung.
3 Sessar, K., Wiedergutmachen oder Strafen (Pfaffenweiler, 1992)Google Scholar; Albrecht, H.-J., “Kriminologische Perspektiven der Wiedergutmachung”, in Eser, A./Kaiser, G./Madiener, K., Neue Wege der Wiedergutmachung im Strafrecht (Freiburg i.Br., 1990), 43 Google Scholar et seq.
4 § 459a StPO.
5 § 153a StPO.
6 See Frehsee, D., Schadenswiedergutmachung als Instrument strafrechtlicher Sozialkontrolle (Berlin, 1987), 316 Google Scholar et seq.
7 Private complaint offenses are, for instance, trespass, insult and defamation, assault, and damage to property.
8 §§40, 43 Gesetz über die Schiedsstellen in den Gemeinden (Law of Sept. 13, 1990, GB1. I, p. 1527).
9 K. Sessar, supra n. 3 (Germany); for public attitude surveys in England see L. Zedner (infra n. 10), at 232 with further references.
10 I wish to thank Lucia Zedner for our discussions on this which greatly helped to heighten my sensitivity on this subject, particularly with regard to the situation in England. She provides an instructive inquiry into the meaning of.terms associated with “reparative justice” in Zedner, L., “Reparation and Retribution: Are they Reconcilable?”, (1994) 57 Modern L. R. 229–250 Google Scholar, at 234.
11 See L. Zedner, ibid., with further references.
12 See L. Zedner, ibid.
13 The following references to reparation in foreign legal systems essentially draw on the comprehensive national surveys provided by L. Zedner (England), M. Groenhuijsen and D. van der Landen (Netherlands), T. Lappi-Seppälä (Finland), K. Madlener (Spain), E. Silverman (USA), and K. Warner (Australia). These and other national surveys have been or will be published under the title “Wiedergutmachung im Kriminalrecht: Internationale Perspektiven”/Reparation in Criminal Law: International Perspectives (A. Eser/S. Walther, (eds.), Beiträge und Materialien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, edition iuscrim, Freiburg i.Br., 1996 et seq.).
14 For a comprehensive overview see Bannenberg, B., Wiedergutmachung in der Strafrechtspraxis (1993).Google Scholar
15 For the broader options aimed at victim-offender mediation in juvenile law, cf. §§10, 15 JGG.
16 See Dölling, D., “Der Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich”, (1992) JZ 493–499.Google Scholar
17 See Wagner, B., “Konfliktregulierung im Rahmen des Täter-Opfer-Ausgleichs bei der Staatsanwaltschaft Ravensburg”, in Marks, E./Meyer, K./Schreckling, J./Wandrey, M. (eds.), Wiedergutmachung und Strafrechtspraxis (Bonn, 1993) 104 Google Scholar et seq.
18 See B. Wagner, supra n. 17, at 107.
19 This seems to be true for other projects as well; see D. Dölling, supra n. 16, at 496.
20 See B. Wagner, supra n. 17, at 110.
21 For the following D. Dölling, supra n. 16, at 496.
22 See D. Dölling, ibid. (67–81%).
23 The concept has been advocated by American proponents of “restorative justice” as well. See Van Ness, D.W., “New Wine and Old Wineskins: Four Challenges of Restorative Justice”, (1993) 4 Criminal Law Forum 251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the ensuing dispute see Ashworth, A., “Some Doubts about Restorative Justice”, (1993) 4 Criminal Law Forum 277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Van Ness, D.W., “A Reply to Andrew Ashworth”, (1993) 4 Criminal Law Forum 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Baumann, J. et al., Alternatwentwurf Wiedergutmachung (München, 1992).Google Scholar
25 See also Weigend, Th., “‘Restitution’ in den USA”, in Eser, A./Kaiser, G./Madlener, K., supra n. 3 Google Scholar; L. Zedner, supra n. 10, at 235; for developments leading up to reform in the Netherlands see Groenhuijsen, M., “Neue Wege der Wiedergutmachung im Strafrecht der Niederlande”, in Eser, A./Kaiser, G./Madlener, K., supra n. 3, at 257–289 Google Scholar, 261 et seq.; Groenhuijsen, M./van der Landen, D., in Eser, A./Walther, S. (eds.), Wiedergutmachung im Kriminalrecht: Internationale Perspektiven, Vol. 1 (Freiburg, 1996), at 51 Google Scholar et seq.
26 See Th. Weigend, supra n. 25, at 115; H. Jung, in A. Eser/G. Kaiser/K. Madlener, supra n. 3, at 96; L. Zedner, supra n. 10, at 235; for Australia K. Warner, supra n. 13.
27 For the U.S. this was held by the Supreme Court in Hughey v. U.S., 110 S.Ct. 1979 (1990).
28 See Th. Weigend, supra n. 25, at 116.
29 For the United States, USSG § 5 5 E.1.1., Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1993).
30 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e)(1985).
31 §§ 403 et seq. StPO.
31a See J. Zila (Sweden) and T. Lappiseppälä (Finland), in A. Eser/S. Walther, supra n. 25, at 229 et seq., 317 et seq.
32 Some American states such as California, Michigan and Rhode Island have expressly embodied in their constitutions the victim's right to receive “restitution”. See Hillenbrandt, S., “Restitution and Victims Rights in the 1980s”, in Lurigio, A.J./Skogan, W.G./Davis, R.C. (eds.), Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies and Programs (1990) 188–204 Google Scholar, at 194.
33 Council of Europe, Explanatory Report on the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (Strasbourg, 1984); Council of Europe, The Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure (Strasbourg, 1985).Google Scholar
34 United Nations, Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (New York, 1986) 43–48.
35 Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
36 For English language literature specifically addressing doctrinal issues, see in particular L. Zedner, supra n. 10, at 228–250; Fattah, E., “From a Guilt Orientation to a Consequence Orientation”, in Küper, W./Welp, J. (eds.), Beiträge zur Rechtswissenschaft, Festschrift für Walter Stree und Johannes Wessels (Heidelberg, 1993) 771–792 Google Scholar; Ashworth, A., “Punishment and Compensation: Victims, Offenders and the State”, (1985) 6 Oxford J. of Legal Studies 86–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as well as the already cited articles by D.W. Van Ness and A. Ashworth, supra n. 23. From the proliferating German discussion, see Frehsee, D., Schadenswiedergutmachung als Instrument strafrechtlicher Sozialkontrolle (Berlin, 1987)Google Scholar; Roxin, C., “Die Wiedergutmachung im System der Strafzwecke”, in Schòch, H. (ed.), Wiedergutmachung und Strafrecht (München, 1987) 37–55 Google Scholar; ibid., “Zur Wiedergutmachung als einer ‘Dritten Spur’ im Sanktionensystem”, in Festschrift für Jürgen Baumann (Bielefeld, 1992) 243–254; D. Rössner, “Autonomie und Zwang im System der Strafrechtsfolgen”, ibid., 269–279; Weigend, Th., Deliktsopfer und Strafverfahren (Berlin, 1989) 532 Google Scholar et seq.; ibid., “‘Restitution’ in den USA”, supra n. 25, at 111–128, 126 et seq.; ibid., “Schadensersatz im Strafverfahren”, in Will, M.R. (ed.), Schadensersatz im Strafverfahren (Kehl a.Rh., 1990) 11–24.Google Scholar
37 Binding, K., Normen I (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1916) 290.Google Scholar
38 See J. Baumann, supra n. 24, at 23.
39 Cf. Streng, F., Strafrechtliche Sanktionen (Stuttgart, 1991) 45.Google Scholar
