Mapping the Needs, Interests, and Expectations of Stakeholders in Legal Proceedings Addressing Sexual Violence

• In Event: Sex crimes in Criminal Law

Abstract

the study maps the needs, interests, and expectations of stakeholders involved in legal proceedings addressing sexual violence. It examines the challenges faced by survivors, perpetrators, legal professionals, and other key actors within the justice system. This analysis is conducted in light of previous research findings that indicate that despite extensive efforts over the years, the justice system has failed to provide an effective response to sexual violence.

The research is anchored in core legal theories. Epistemologically, it builds on the theoretical framework of Dispute System Design (DSD), and the Feminist legal theory,. Theoretically, it draws on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Procedural Justice Theory, and Access to Justice Theory.

The study employs 34 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with a range of stakeholders, including survivors, perpetrators, attorneys, law enforcement officials, and representatives of support organizations. The findings reveal that despite the inherent adversarial dynamics between parties, their fundamental needs often overlap. for instance, the need for rehabilitation, access to clear and accurate information, and legal processes that respect their dignity and humanity. However, the legal process itself—due to its adversarial nature, the separation, exclusion, and silencing—often exacerbates positions, deepens conflicts, and leads to the perception of legal proceedings as punishment.

Through a systematic analysis of stakeholder needs, the study argues that only a justice system that listens to and prioritizes the needs of its stakeholders, adapts its procedures accordingly, and offers a holistic and integrative response can foster public trust and provide an effective framework for addressing sexual violence. The research further demonstrates that establishing such a system necessitates a significant reorientation of priorities and a restructuring of the existing procedural architecture.

Author

• Rotem Aloni Davidov, Haifa university, Israel