To know or not to know:should crimes regarding photographs of their child sexual abuse be disclosed to now-adult, unknowing victims?

This paper considers the unexplored question of whether unaware crime victims have rights or interests in knowing and not knowing information pertaining to the crime(s) committed against them. Our specific focus is on whether crimes regarding abusive images (AI) should be disclosed to now-adult victims of child sexual abuse who feature in them. Because these issues have not been addressed in the victimology or criminological literature, we utilise literature in another discipline - health care ethics and law - to inform our analysis. Through engaging with the debate on the right to know and not to know information concerning one’s genetic status, we develop a conceptualisation of the issues regarding unknowing AI victims. A rights-based conceptualisation proves to be largely inappropriate; we contend that, instead, it would be more productive to look to unknowing AI victims’ interests. We argue that the interests at stake are grounded in autonomy and/or spatial privacy, and that in order to find a way to resolve the disclosure dilemma, these interests must be considered alongside consequentialist concerns; disclosing information regarding AI could empower now-adult victims but could well cause them (further) harm. Finally, we consider the implications of our analysis for victimology

Mapping parties in a multidimensional European political space : a comparative study of the EUvox and euandi party position data sets

First published online: 18 January 2019This study compares the spatial positioning of over 200 political parties across 28 European Union (EU) member states in two cross-national voting advice applications (VAAs) developed for the 2014 European elections: EUvox and euandi. We find that the two VAAs show highly similar results in terms of party positioning on the cultural liberal-conservative and pro-anti EU dimensions, while economic left–right placements converge less, especially concerning right-wing parties. Our analyses reveal that the higher overlap on the cultural and EU dimensions is a result, at least partially, of the inclusion of similar items used to measure these concepts, while most of the systematic divergence between the two VAAs in left–right placements stems from problematic issue-statements used in the dimensional calculations. We demonstrate how certain items can cause bias in the placements of specific party families by (1) not aligning with other statements that measure the same latent construct; (2) tapping into other latent constructs, in addition to the one they are supposed to measure; and (3) not inducing sufficient polarization between parties