Child Victims in the Criminal Justice System

The previous chapter reviewed empirical findings regarding the psycho–social needs of child victims. This evidence–based examination has been integrated with the normative human rights framework presented in Chapter 2. Together they create a multidisciplinary model which can be used to evaluate public responses to crimes against children. The current chapter utilizes the needs–rights model to examine the current legal responses to childhood victimization in adversarial criminal justice systems and their ability to meet the human rights and needs of child victims. At first glance, the characteristics of the adversarial criminal justice process in Western societies seem to overlook many of the needs–rights of child victims. Their rehabilitation and best interests, while possibly in the background, are not assigned high priority in the process. Child victims’ participation is limited and problematic. Important aspects of children’s development and the right to equality are further neglected. As to protection, while this is clearly a goal of the criminal justice system (unlike the other human rights principles), the low reporting rates of crimes against children, and the evidentiary difficulties associated with such crimes, make it difficult for the criminal justice system to reach this goal in a satisfactory manner. Further, an investigation into the psycho–social needs of child victims, such as an apology, direct (positive) interaction with the perpetrator, validation and mourning, reveals that they are typically not addressed in the criminal process. These matters are discussed in this chapter, as well as some suggestions for making the criminal justice process more oriented toward the needs–rights of child victims. Accordingly, this chapter begins by uncovering the strains related to the involvement in the criminal justice process for all victims. These difficulties result from the fact–oriented nature of the process, which requires victims to discuss their victimization in detail, leaving out any ‘irrelevant’ information such as their feelings, background or special circumstances. Additionally, the outcomes of the process are typically dichotomous — either acquittal or a finding of guilt — with incarceration often linked with the latter. These outcomes can cause significant emotional burden on victims: if the offender is acquitted, then the message is one of disbelief in the victim’s report. If the offender is found guilty (and consequently has to endure