Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Jensen, Maureen Susan en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2007-06-01T19:22:13Z
dc.date.available 2007-06-01T19:22:13Z
dc.date.issued 2000-03-01T00:00:00Z en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1993/2355
dc.description.abstract In the following thesis the author analyzed legal decisions from a superior court, in the form of 46 Manitoba Court of Appeal decisions in cases heard in the Winnipeg Family Violence Court, 1990-1992, to determine whether the reforms contributed to justice for victims of family violence. Using the methodology of theoretically oriented content analysis 18 sentencing goals and factors commonly used in sentencing decisions in criminal cases were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. The seriousness of the crime as defined by its impact on the victim was mentioned only 6 times in 34 sentencing decisions. By failing, in the vast majority of cases, to acknowledge the seriousness of the crime, the Court of Appeal reinforced and legitimized the minimization of family violence offences. The examination of conviction issues revealed that bias against finding the testimony of women and children to be credible, particularly in sexual assault cases, has persisted despite amendments enacted to remedy this bias. Recommendations are included. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) en_US
dc.format.extent 12523098 bytes
dc.format.extent 184 bytes
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.format.mimetype text/plain
dc.language en en_US
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title An analysis of Manitoba Court of Appeal decisions in cases heard in the Winnipeg Family Violence Court, 1990-1992 en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.degree.discipline Social Work en_US
dc.degree.level Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

View Statistics