Why should victims ask that the machinery of criminal justice be set into motion on their behalf? Whar do they want? Victims can pursue one, or even some combinations of three distinct goals. They first ist to see to it that criminal is punished. The second possible objective is to use the justice process as leverage to compel the offrender to undergo treatment. The third possible aim is to try to get court to order the wrongdoer to make restitution. This study examined the realtion with justification of punishment versus criminal victims. It is punishment that comes to most people’s minds first. Most of the deliberations of criminal justice officials concern questions of punishment. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as a necessary evil. It is argued nthat punishing wrongdoers curbs furure criminality in a number of ways. The offender who experiences unpleasant consequences learns a lesson and is discouraged from breaking the law again (specific deterrence). Making an example of a convicted criminal also serves as a warning to would-be offenders contemplating the same act (general deterrence). According to theory of punishment as retribution, it is fair and just to make offenders suffer in proportion to the suffering they inflicted on others. Some victims do not look to the criminal justice system to exact revenge in their name. Instead, they want professionals and experts to help offenders become decent, law-abiding citizens. Some victims seek restitution rather than retribution or rehabilitation. Wherther they desire that something be done to the offender (punishment), for the offender (treatment), or for themselves (restitution), victims want the criminal justice system to react effectively to violations of law.

Why should victims ask that the machinery of criminal justice be set into motion on their behalf? Whar do they want? Victims can pursue one, or even some combinations of three distinct goals. They first ist to see to it that criminal is punished. The second possible objective is to use the justice process as leverage to compel the offrender to undergo treatment. The third possible aim is to try to get court to order the wrongdoer to make restitution. This study examined the realtion with justification of punishment versus criminal victims. It is punishment that comes to most people’s minds first. Most of the deliberations of criminal justice officials concern questions of punishment. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as a necessary evil. It is argued nthat punishing wrongdoers curbs furure criminality in a number of ways. The offender who experiences unpleasant consequences learns a lesson and is discouraged from breaking the law again (specific deterrence). Making an example of a convicted criminal also serves as a warning to would-be offenders contemplating the same act (general deterrence). According to theory of punishment as retribution, it is fair and just to make offenders suffer in proportion to the suffering they inflicted on others. Some victims do not look to the criminal justice system to exact revenge in their name. Instead, they want professionals and experts to help offenders become decent, law-abiding citizens. Some victims seek restitution rather than retribution or rehabilitation. Wherther they desire that something be done to the offender (punishment), for the offender (treatment), or for themselves (restitution), victims want the criminal justice system to react effectively to violations of law.

criminal victims, criminal justice, punishment, the right to participate in criminal justice, procedure in a public trial