ABSTRACT

When an individual is suspected or accused of committing a criminal offence, they are brought into the realm of the criminal process. This process can be complex and alien, and the accused person may not understand – or be able to engage with – elements thereof. This paper examines how experiences of the criminal process are framed by lawyers, drawing from interviews conducted with lawyers (N = 36) as part of a larger project on the experiences of criminal justice in (south) Wales. Lawyers, when discussing the experiences of the accused, made frequent distinctions between “first timers” and “regulars”. Whilst this distinction has been touched-upon in previous studies, it has not yet been subject to much exploration and interrogation. Within this paper, we explore and critique the how and why of this distinction, querying the utility and limits of such a distinction. We argue that whilst an accused’s experience should be accounted for, it is unhelpful to frame “regulars” as not needing – or being undeserving – of attention.

摘要

当一个人被怀疑或被指控犯有刑事犯罪时，他们就会被纳入刑事诉讼程序。这个过程可能是复杂和陌生的，被告可能不理解或无法参与其中的要素。本文根据对律师的访谈，探讨了律师如何构建刑事诉讼程序的经验（N = 36）作为关于（南）威尔士刑事司法经验的大型项目的一部分。律师在讨论被告的经历时，经常区分“初来乍到者”和“常客”。虽然之前的研究已经触及这种区别，但尚未经过太多探索和质疑。在本文中，我们探讨和批评了这种区别的方式和原因，质疑这种区别的实用性和局限性。我们认为，虽然应该考虑被告的经历，但将“常客”描述为不需要或不值得关注是没有帮助的。