Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last two decades have seen increasing awareness of the relevance of victims' interests to the criminal justice system. The revival of interest in victims of crime during the 1970s and 1980s has resulted in various reforms to alleviate the problems for victims resulting from crime and from encounter with the criminal justice system. The most recent reforms have centered on the integration of victims in the criminal justice process, in an attempt to reduce their feelings of alienation and perceptions of injustice. In the adversary criminal procedure such as Korean criminal procedure, one of the ordinary popular remedies in an attempt to guarantee the right and legal status of crime victim in criminal justice process has been introduction of Victim Impact Statement at the defendant’s sentencing hearing. In general, Victim Impact Statement allows the victim or the victim’s family to describe the harm suffered as a consequence of the defendant’s actions. It may detail the physical, psychological, and economic impact of the offense on the victim or survivors, the victim’s or survivors’ opinions about the crime and the offender, and, in murder cases, information about the personal qualities of the deceased. This study 1) examines the development of the concept and various forms of victim impact statement, 2) reviews constitutional, penological, and practical problems and arguments regarding introduction of victim impact statement in adversary criminal procedures, examining what was historical backgrounds of its introduction and institutionalization and the pros and cons on it, 3) studies legislations and practical operating system of Victim Impact Statement in the U. S. A, Canada, England, and Japan by comparative methods, 4) presents the empirical research results classified by crime victim's participation rate, the perception of victim and criminal justice officers (judge, prosecutor, probation etc.), impact of Victim Impact Statement on sentence results and victim's satisfaction to examine its practice and effectiveness, and 5) diagnoses the suitability and limitation of introduction of Victim Impact Statement into Korean criminal procedures and suggests the concrete methods to apply.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.121 | 0.044 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".