Exploring Agreement on Appropriate Responses to Domestic Violence and Sexual Trauma Across Victim Advocates,Mental Health Service Providers,and Substance Abuse Treatment Providers

Abstract

Research suggests that survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are more at risk than the general population for substance abuse and/or mental health disorders (Kendler et al., 2000). Additionally, research suggests that survivors of both crimes are at risk to be “multiply diagnosed-have” a history of victimization, a mental health diagnosis, and abuse of alcohol and drugs (Steele & Rechberger, 2002). While advocates have called for a change in the treatment of trauma survivors to treat their multiple needs, the availability of collaborative care between victim advocates and behavioral health professionals remains questionable. Using survey data collected from victim advocates, mental health service providers, and substance abuse treatment providers, this study assesses the extent to which providers of different backgrounds agree on how to effectively and appropriately serve domestic violence and sexual assault survivors-the first step in achieving the goal of holistic care.     

Langauge and Violence: Analysis of Four Discursive Operations

The Interactional and Discursive View of Violence and Resistance is a framework for critical analysis and research, prevention and intervention that takes into account the conditions that enable personalized violence, the actions of perpetrators and victims, and the language used in representing those actions. Using this analytic framework, we analyzed five accounts of personalized violence, one each from a perpetrator, a psychiatrist, a judge, a government minister, and a therapist. Our results demonstrate the scope and the ubiquity with which diverse accounts locally accomplish four-discursive-operations; namely, the concealing of violence, obfuscating of perpetrators’ responsibility, concealing of victims’ resistance, and blaming and pathologizing of victims. We examine the specific linguistic devices that combine to accomplish the four-discursive-operations in each case. These data suggest that the problem of violence is inextricably linked to the problem of representation.

被害人对审查起诉的制约问题初探

审查起诉是刑事诉讼中的重要一环,对确保刑事诉讼活动的顺利完成具有独特的价值。为实现诉讼程序公正的目标,对其进行适当的制约就不可或缺。本文拟从被害人的角度,对审查起诉制约机制的缺陷加以评析,并对完善这一制度提出自己的构想。     

被害人承诺在故意伤害罪中的规范限度

为限制被害人承诺在故意伤害罪中的有效性,学界以善良风俗或者伤害程度为由进行的尝试,都因根本上缺乏立法支持而不具可行性。我国刑事立法和司法实践对生命法益予以严格保护,当重伤行为严重危及被害人的生命时,被害人承诺不能阻却行为的违法性,以实现法律对于生命权的周延保护。我国刑法采用了“单一制”的共同犯罪立法体例,现行《刑法》第232条关于“故意杀人的”的概括性规定包含实行、教唆、帮助以及同意杀人等多种侵害他人生命的行为,为本文以“严重危及生命的重伤行为”作为故意伤害罪中被害人承诺有效与否的界分标准提供了规范支撑,由此得出的解释结论也能与现行《刑法》关于组织出卖人体器官罪和无过当防卫权的规定保持规范语义上的一致性。     

被害人报警意愿的诉讼法视角分析

刑事被害人学已成为刑事法学界研究的热点,但对被害人报警意愿的研究相当匮乏。以刑事诉讼法具体的程序操作层面为分析路径,解读被害人不愿报警的法律原因,建立检察机关的起诉政策间接影响公安机关记录活动与被害人报警意愿的双重模式。     

被害人诉讼地位的合理界定

加强对被害人的权利保护是国际上刑事司法的主要发展趋势之一。我国1996年修改《刑事诉讼法》时,把被害人规定为诉讼当事人,从刑事诉讼基本原理的角度分析,这种把被害人的诉讼地位提到当事人高度的做法存在一定的问题,并且被害人的当事人地位在司法实践中也名不副实。被害人的刑事诉讼中的科学定位应当是特殊的诉讼参与人,根据特殊的诉讼参与人的定位,被害人应当享有一定范围的程序启动权和广泛的程序参与权。     

论刑事被害人权益的保护

我国于1996年修改后的《刑事诉讼法》确立了被害人在刑事诉讼中的当事人地位,规定了被害人拥有的相应当事人的诉讼权利,然而司法实践中,被害人的权益方面仍存在明显的不足。本文在分析被害人权益保护现状的基础上,就应采取哪些措施切实保障被害人权益提出自己的见解。     

被害人辨认错误及其防范

被害人辨认错误是导致刑事错案发生的主要原因之一。被害人“身临其境”和“身受其害”的当事人身份,决定了被害人体验案件事实和辨认犯罪嫌疑人存在局限性,容易出现某些“诚实”的错误。分析被害人辨认错误的成因,进一步完善辨认规则,健全辨认程序,有助于提高被害人辨认的准确性和可信性,防范错误辨认,保护被害人权利。     

Apology in victim–offender mediation

Victim–offender mediation practices bring conflicting parties together so they can engage in a two-way dialogue and ultimately negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution. The fact that apology may be a motivator for participating in the mediation process and that it is often a common outcome of mediation suggests that research on mediation ought to more carefully explore the nature of the apologies that are offered. The present study provides a qualitative exploration of the prevalence and nature of the apologies offered by offenders to their victims during face-to-face mediations. Fifty-nine mediation agreements recorded by the longest running mediation scheme in the UK were analysed. It was found that 50.8% of agreements contained mention of the perpetrator saying ‘I’m sorry’ or offering a partial apology (i.e. acknowledging harm and/or promising forbearance). Full apologies were absent in the mediation agreements. Agreements did not make explicit mention of the offender admitting responsibility or expressing remorse or regret. Finally, although the mediation agreements did not make any explicit mention of offenders offering reparation, they did record efforts at providing solutions to the conflict.     

急性醉酒所涉及的法律问题

急性醉酒在医学上是一种异常的精神状态,出于维护公共安全的需要,当醉酒者作为加害人时法律宜将其视作正常人对待,接受同样的处罚,但法律对非自愿和病理性的醉酒应作除外性规定。当醉酒者是受害人时,法律应尊重客观事实,承认其精神异常,按法律对精神病人同样的规定来处理。