-

Abstract

The participation of victims in criminal proceedings is a controversial issue which lies at the core of the understanding of criminal procedure law. According to the criminal procedure approach of the United States of America and Turkey, the crime is mainly committed against the public not the individual, therefore, only the public prosecutor has a right to decide whether or not to prosecute. British criminal law, despite its role as the origin of U.S. common law, takes the opposite approach in which the individual is also entitled to initiate a public case before the court as well as public prosecutor, which is called as private prosecution. Also, whereas the charged or the accused has rights ensured by the United State Constitution, the victim of crime has no rights, a fact that has been criticized. The critics arguing that victims have a limited participation in the criminal proceeding has led to a new approach to provide the victims with new rights in criminal procedure. “The Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 (18 U.S.C. § 3771, shortly referred as CVRA)” gives victims certain rights to participate in criminal proceedings. These rights resemble the rights listed in the “Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 1985” by the United Nation of which Turkey is a member. Therefore, to understand victims’ rights in the CVRA may be helpful for Turkish criminal law to understand the rights defined by the United Nation. In that respect, this study focuses on the rights regulated in the “CVRA” and their application in the case law. Before that, the history of these rights has been put across in the light of the case called Linda R. S. v. Richard D and the President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime in 1982. This study aims to show how victim participation in criminal procedure has been regularly increased throughout the history in the United States of America and to open a new window for Turkish criminal law into the awareness of the victim participation in criminal procedure which is today on the rise

Keywords

• Crime victims, rights of victim, the role of victims, the United States of America, criminal proceeding, participation to the criminal trial, victim impact statements

Mağdur Katılımlı Bir Ceza Muhakemesi Anlayışına Doğru: ABD Hukukunda Mağdur Haklarının Gelişimi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Abstract

References

1. Aaronson, David E.: “New Rights and Remedies: The Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004”, Pace Law Review 2007- 2008, Cilt: 28, Sayı: 4, s. 623-682, (çevrimiçi) http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&c ontext=plr, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
2. Albrecht, Hans Jörg/ Kilchling, Michael: “Victims of Terrorism Policies: Should Victims of Terrorism be Treated Differently?”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Nisan 2007, Cilt:13, Sayı:1-2, s. 221- 241, (çevrimiçi) http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/848/chp%253A10.1007%252 F978-0-387-89291- 7_7.pdf?auth66=1412945769_d4dff78e6de1d68e6b6eaab0d3830b4d&e xt=.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2014).
3. Barnard, Jayne W.: “Allocution for Victims of Economic Crimes”, Notre Dame Law Review 2001, Cilt: 77, Sayı: 1, s. 39-86 (çevrimiçi) http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.297246, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
4. Beloof, Douglas Evan: “The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim Participation Model”, Utah Law Review 1999, Sayı: 2, s.289-332, (çevrimiçi) http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.174788, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2014).
5. Beloof, Douglas Evan: Victims’ Rights: A Documentary and Reference Guide, ABC-CLIO, 2012.
6. Butler, Russell P.:”What Practitioners and Judges Need to Know Regarding Crime Victims’ Participatory Rights in Federal Sentencing Proceedings”, Federal Sentencing Reporter Ekim 2006, Cilt:19, Sayı:1, s.21-29, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedsen19&div =7&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
7. Congressional Record, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume 150, Issue 53, April 22, 2004, U.S. Government Printing Office, s. 4260-4280, (çevrimiçi) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2004-04-22/pdf/CREC- 2004-04-22-pt1-PgS4260.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
8. Demirbaş, Timur: Kriminoloji, 4. bs., Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2012. Dijk, Jan J. N. Van: “Benchmarking Legislation on Crime Victims: The UN Victims Declaration of 1985”, s. 202-208, (çevrimiçi) http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=80066, (Erişim Tarihi: 06.02.2014).

9. Dolliver, James M.: “Victims’ Rights Constitutional Amendment: A Bad Idea Whose Time Should Not Come”, The Wayne Law Review Sonbahar 1987-1988, Cilt: 34, Sayı: 1, s. 87-94, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr34&di v=13&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
10. Doyle, Charles: “Crime Victims’ Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18. U.S.C.3771”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, April 24, 2012, s.1-49, (çevrimiçi) https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33679.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 14.02.2014).
11. Dressler, Joshua: Understanding Criminal Law, 6.bs., LexisNexis, United States, 2012.
12. Dursun, Selman: “Megan Kanunu (ABD’nde Cinsel Suç Faillerinin Sicile Kaydı ve Sicil Bilgilerinin Kamuya Açıklanması)”, AÜEHFD 2004, Cilt: 8, Sayı: 1-2, s. 233-262,
13. Dursun, Selman: “Özellikle Mağduru Çocuk Olan Mükerrir Cinsel Suç Faillerine Karşı Toplumun Korunması Bağlamında Megan Kanunu Hakkında Soru ve Cevaplar”, CHKD 2014, Cilt:2, Sayı:1-2, s. 235-240.
14. Fletcher, William A.: “Standing: Who Can Sue to Enforce a Legal Duty?”, Alabama Law Review 2013, Cilt: 65, Sayı: 2, s. 277-287, (çevrimiçi) http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2065/Issue%202/2% 20Fletcher%20277-287.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
15. Giannini, Mary Margaret: “Equal Rights for Equal Rites?: Victim Allocution, Defendant Allocution, and the Crime Victims’Rights Act”, Yale Law & Policy Review 2008, Cilt: 26, Sayı:2, s.431-484, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/yalpr26&div= 14&g_sent=1&collection=journals#438, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
16. Hellerstein, Dina R.: “Victim Impact Statement: Reform or Reprisal?”, American Criminal Law Review 1989, Cilt:27, Sayı:2, s.391-430, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr27& div=18&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
17. Hill, Trey: “Victim Impact Statements: A Modified Perspective”, The Law & Psychology Review İlkbahar 2005, Cilt:29, s. 211-221, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lpsyr29&div= 11&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
18. Hills, Adelma M. / Thomson, Donald M.: “Should victim impact influence sentences? Understanding the community’s justice reasoning”, Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1999, Cilt: 17, Sayı: 5, s.661-671, (çevrimiçi) DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
19. Kyf, The Honorable Jon / Twist, Steven J./ Higgins, Stephen: “On The Wings Of Their Angels: The Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, And Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act”, Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 2005, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 3, s.581-628, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lewclr9&div= 31&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10. 2014).
20. Lee, Evan Tsen/ Ellis, Josephine Mason: “The Standing Doctrine’s Dirty Little Secret”, Northwestern University Law Review Kış 2012, Cilt: 107, Sayı:1, s. 169-236, (çevrimi- çi)http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n1/169/LR107 n1Lee.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
21. Luginbuhl, James/ Burkhead, Michael: “Victim Impact Evidence in a Capital Trial: Encouraging Votes for Death”, American Journal of Criminal Justice Sonbahar 1995, Cilt: 20, Sayı: 1, s.1-16, (çevrimiçi) http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/237/art%253A10.1007%252F BF02886115.pdf?auth66=1413125564_108ae2be08306d5a78f48485fc8fc 9dc&ext=.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014)
22. Marinescu, Liviu Mihail: “Judicial Aspects Concerning the Victim in the American Justice System”, Acta Universitatis Danubius Juridica 2007, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 1, s.63-68, (çevrimiçi) http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=3243bcd9- ec41-4362-a2ff-e417ea9df398&articleId=4dc96c6c-2fd4-4e48-9310- 20cba05ad208, (Erişim Tarihi: 10. 10. 2014).
23. Matthews, Walker A.: “Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment: Ethical Considerations for the Prudent Prosecutor”, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1997-1998, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 3, s. 735-752, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/geojlege11&d iv=42&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi:10. 10. 2014).
24. Murphy, Wendy J.: “Federalizing”Victims’Rights To Hold State Courts Accountable”, The Lewis & Clark Law Review Sonbahar 2005, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 3, s.647-657, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lewclr9&div= 33&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10. 2014).
25. Myers, Bryan/ Greene, Edith: “The Prejudicial Nature of Victim Impact Statements Implications for Capital Sentencing Policy”, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2004, Cilt: 10, Sayı: 4, s. 492-515, (çevrimiçi) http://people.uncw.edu/myersb/292/readings/readings/victim%20im pact.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 10. 2014).
26. National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, Crime Victim Compensation: An Overview, (çevrimiçi) http://www.nacvcb.org/index.asp?bid=14, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.02.2014).
27. Özbek, Veli Özer: Ceza Hukukunda Suçtan Doğan Mağduriyetin Giderilmesi, 1.bs., Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 1999.
28. Packer, Herbert L.: The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, 1. bs., Stanford University Press, Stanford, Kaliforniya, 1968.
29. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime – Final Report, Aralık 1982, (çevrimiçi) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/presdntstskforcrprt/8729 9.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.07.2013).
30. Reagan, Ronald: Promulgation 4831 of April 8, 1981, 95 STAT. 1807, The United States Government Publishing Office (GPO), (çevrimiçi) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-95/pdf/STATUTE-95- Pg1807.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
31. Roland, David L.: “Progress in the Victim Reform Movement: No Longer the ‘Forgotten Victim’”, Pepperdine Law Review 1989-1990, Cilt: 17, Sayı: 1, s. 35-58, (çevrimiçi) http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/pepplr17&div =12&g_sent=1&collection=journals, (Erişim Tarihi:10. 10. 2014).
32. Shapiro, Bruce: “Victims & Vengeance Why the Victims’ Rights Amendment is a Bad Idea”, The Nation, February 10, 1997, s.11-19, (çevrimiçi) http://www.sweetcommunication.com.au/files/dart/BruceShapiro_ar ticle1.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2014).
33. Sokullu- Akıncı, Füsun: Viktimoloji (Mağdurbilim), Selman Dursun’un Katkılarıyla 2. bs., Beta Yayınları, İstanbul 2008.
34. The Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 60, (a)-(1) maddesi, Victim’s Rights, (çevrimiçi) http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20 Rules/Criminal%20Procedure.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.02. 2014).
35. The Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center (MCVRC), The History of Crime Victims’ Rights in America, (çevrimiçi) http://www.mdcrimevictims.org/laws-and-policies/history-of-crimevictims-rights-in-america/, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2014).
36. The National Center for Victims of Crime, Restitution, (çevrimiçi) http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-helpbulletins-for-crime-victims/restitution, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.02.2014).
37. U.S. Constitution, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (çevrimiçi) https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment, (Erişim Tarihi: 27. 04. 2015).
38. United Nations, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, (çevrimiçi) http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 06.02.2014).
39. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3771, (e) Definitions, Crime victims’ rights, Effective: December 1, 2009, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.02. 2014).
40. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, U.S.Md.,1987, 15 Haziran 1987, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
41. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, U.S. Fla., 1977, 22 Mart 1977, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
42. In re Mikhel, 453 F.3d 1137, C.A.9 (Cal.), 2006, 7 Temmuz 2006, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02. 2014).
43. In re W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555 C.A.2 (N.Y.),2005, 03 Haziran 2005, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 02. 2014).
44. Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, C.A.9 (Cal.), 2006, 20 Ocak 2006, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02. 2014).
45. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 93 S. Ct. 1146, U.S. Tex. 1973, 5 Mart 1973 (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
46. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, U.S.Tenn.,1991, 27 Haziran 1991, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
47. South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, U.S.S.C.,1989, 12 Haziran 1989, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02. 2014).
48. U.S. v. Ingrassia, 392 F.Supp.2d 493, E.D.N.Y., 2005, 15 Ekim 2005, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 13.02. 2014).
49. U.S. v. Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, D.Utah, 2005, 21 Aralık 2005 (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.02. 2014).
50. U.S. v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, N.D.Iowa, 2005, 18 Şubat 2005, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
51. U.S. v. Kirkland, 853 F.2d 1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1988), 29 Eylül 1988, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15. 02. 2014).
52. U.S. v. McDaniel davası, 411 F.Supp.2d 1323 D.Utah, 2005, 19 Ekim 2005, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 02. 2014)
53. U.S. v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, C.A.4 (Va.), 2007, 14, Mart 2007, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).
54. U.S. v. Rubin davası, 558 F.Supp.2d 411 E.D.N.Y.,2008, 11 Haziran 2008, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 02. 2014).
55. U.S. v. Ruffen, 780 F.2d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1986), 22 Ocak 1986, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15. 02. 2014).
56. U.S. v. Sunrhodes, 831 F.2d 1537, C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1987, 20 Ekim 1987, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15. 02. 2014).
57. U.S. v. Turner davası, 367 F.Supp.2d 319 E.D.N.Y.,2005, 29 Nisan 2005, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12. 02. 2014).
58. Yargıç Dennis W. Dohnal, (Memorandum Opinion), in U.S. v. Sharp, 463 F.Supp.2d 556, E.D.Va., 2006, 22 Kasım 2006, (Westlaw International), (çevrimiçi) http://international.westlaw.com/, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2014).