International Journal on Criminology Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 51

The Impact of Victimological Theories on the Rights of Crime Victims in France
the damage caused by the crime, and the
role given to victims and/or their families
throughout the penal process.
A – From Compensation Alone to
the Right to an Overall Remedy for
Crime Victims
Compensation of the victim or their
loved ones has always been a priority
in dealing with the damages
caused by the transgression of a value that
the social group considers should be protected.
Within various methods and procedures,
compensation has taken the form of
noxal surrender, voluntary arrangements,
equivalents, or financial transactions. These
“damages and interests” have more recently
become a recognized right before the criminal
or civil courts. France’s 1958 Criminal
Procedure Code (which substantially altered
the 1808 Code) thus allows the victim
to receive civil redress for their damages before
the criminal judge, if desired. Thanks to
this institutionalization of civil action, the
victim can be compensated for all damages
suffered and, just as importantly, participate
in bringing out the truth and fighting impunity.
9 The second of these “two faces of
civil action before criminal courts” 10 is still
problematic for some aspects of legal doctrine,
inadequately influencing case law,
and retaining only its “vengeful” aspect in
the strictly vindictive sentence. Current victimology
allows for the rejection of such an
approach to victimhood: in the daily life of
the courts, the victim is in a far more vindicatory
position, in which they ask to understand
what has happened (often within the
small family circle), and thus avoid this type
of crime or serious offense being repeated,
and participate in the search for solutions
together with the perpetrator (where appropriate),
in order to be reconciled. The most
inadmissible vindictive attitudes are undeniably
present in everyday court life, but
they are very rare. They are mostly the result
of the parties having been insufficiently
supported in the aftermath of the events, or
of bad management of the case, resulting in
secondary victimization at various stages
of the penal process. The fate of victims of
petty offenses or contraventions (which are
very unfairly sanctioned) gives even greater
cause for concern: most of the time, they
are forgotten in alternatives to judicial proceedings,
and unseen by the qualified tribunals,
because the acts are perceived not to
be serious. Consequently, the victims’ rights
are sacrificed on the altar of merciless criminal
inflation. Consequently, the huge benefits
of massive, urgent decriminalization
that conforms to the fundamental principles
of criminal law (particularly necessity,
proportionality, and rapidity) seem easy to
imagine.
Since 1970, the Council of Europe
has included compensation for crime
victims as an issue on its work program.
French law provides remarkable legislation
in this domain, offering one of the most effective
compensation systems in the world
(1977, 1986, 1990, 2008; art. 706-3 and s.,
R 50-1 and s. C.pr.pén [Criminal Procedure
Code]). Together, the Compensation
Board for the Victims of Crimes (Commission
d’indemnisation des victimes d’infractions,
or CIVI: civil jurisdiction, independent)
and the Guarantee Fund for Victims
of Terrorism and other Offences (Fonds de
9
According to article 2 of France’s Code of Criminal Procedure, “Civil action to claim reparation for damages
caused by a crime, offense, or infringement is a right of all those who have personally suffered from the harm
directly caused by the infraction.”
10
See Boulan (1973).
49