The Landscape of Victim Rights in Australian Homicide Cases--Lessons from the International Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the development of victim rights in sentencing through a comparative analysis of the rights of family victims in homicide sentencing proceedings across Australia, the United States, England and Wales and Canada. Of the various rights afforded to victims of crime, the use of family victim impact evidence in the sentencing of homicide offenders has proven most contentious, with various courts grappling with the weight such evidence ought to play in sentencing proceedings. In homicide cases where the family of the deceased victim submits a statement, all Australian and international jurisdictions except the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) have resolved to allow the consideration of such statements on the basis inter alia that family victims may incur harms potentially relevant to the sentencing process. New South Wales continues to reject such evidence on the basis that family statements may value the deceased’s life above that of another. This article considers the status of family impact statements in homicide cases by examining the treatment of family victims in sentencing law on an international basis, with particular focus on pilot schemes in England and Wales, where family victims have been provided personal counsel at public expense, for use in homicide cases.
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 | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".