Victims, Victimology and Restorative Justice - Term Paper Example

 Victimology and Restorative Justice Question 1 Introduction The purpose of this essay is to analyse how the study of victimization has affected the manner in which the youth today is provided justice. In this regard, the paper also tries to focus upon the services that are provided to the youth to make them more powerful as far as contemporary youth justice is concerned. These services include both the ones funded by the independent government and the ones funded by Non-profit and Non- Government Organisations. For the above mentioned purposes, the essay first tries to define some of the important terms that are essential for the discussion of contemporary youth justice. Also, the paper concentrates on theoretical perspectives on the victimisation surveys. As Walklate (1991) relates, this is done in order to determine the effectiveness of the surveys for the purpose of the deduction of its implications on the providing of justice to young individuals. Further, the essay also deals with the issues that may be involved as far as the victim participation in youth justice is concerned. At a later stage, the paper deals with the effectiveness and responsibilities of the YOTS to the victims of crime. Victimology and the ‘Victims movement’ According to Goodey (2005), victimology is a branch of science that deals with the study of the relationship of the individual who has been victimised to the offender or the perpetrator of law, the police, the criminal justice system (the judges etc) and other organisations such as the media. For Wolhuter et al. (2008), victimology has led to the consideration of the victim as an essential part of the criminal justice system. The study of the responses of the victims, or the victimisation surveys, and the ‘victims movement’, a movement that was aimed to safeguard the rights of victims, in itself has made the victims ‘key players’ rather than ‘forgetful actors.’ However, how effective this study has been would be determined later. For the carrying out of the victimisation surveys, both the statutory and voluntary sector provides services to the victims. The statutory sector consists of all kinds of organizations that are funded by the government through the money generated from the imposition of taxes while the voluntary sector provides services to the victims by the means of organisations that are either Non-Profit or Non-Governmental. Now the essay will discuss briefly the perspectives on victimology and victimisation surveys and the effectiveness of both. Perspectives on victimology and Victimisation surveys The purpose of the carrying out of the victimisation surveys is basically to involve the victims in the justice system so that their concerns can be better understood and dealt with. The victimisation surveys try to do good by considering young victims as key players. However there are many different perspectives on the matter. Positive Victimology A perspective on victimology is represented by the term called the ‘positivist victimology.’ Positivist victimology assumes that crime is something that is caused by factors which can be studied through scientific investigation. This perspective further assumes that the victims may themselves lead to consequences that may result in their own victimization. Positivist victimology, however, makes a lot of assumptions. A major weakness with positive victimology is that it assumes that the identity of the victim is self evident because it is linked to the harm that has been sustained by the victim as a result of the crime. As a consequence, this perspective leads to the concentration on conventional interpersonal crimes only. According to Mawby and Walklate (1994), there also lies a tendency of viewing the criminal justice system as the ultimate guarantee of justice which may not be true all the time. Positivist victimology further fails to accept that the assumptions about the identity of the victims are actually contingent instead of being self evident. This is because they are not shaped by the law itself but also by individuals who influence the law. Also, it fails to recognize that the state itself, through its processes and organizations, might create more victims. Social construction is also something that is ignored by the positivists when it comes to the labelling of the individual victims. Radical victimology Radical victimology, instead of focusing on the individual factors that may be involved, considers the factors of the crimes as being dependent on the organization of the society, the role of the state and the legal justice system in itself. This means that the identity of the victims is no longer taken to be self evident. Rather the victims of both ‘the powerful’ and the state are given importance. Radicals usually have the tendency to observe the offenders as people who have been victims of the state. So, instead of the focus on victims, offenders are given greater importance. Radicals have been criticized for the usual incomplete portrayal of the processes and the factors that lead to victimization. It takes into account social relations and leaves behind problems that could arise due to the difference in genders, races and ages. Critical Victimology Critical victimology highlights the importance of the historical and cultural contexts that result in the shaping of victimisation processes and the sensitivities of individuals and society, as a whole, towards them. The important thing is that this perspective on victimology assumes that the terms ‘victims’ and ‘victimsation’ are specific to every culture and it would be wrong to deduce that they are universal. Also, it points to the possibility of the manipulation and exploitation of the image of the ‘victim’ because of the sympathy that is invoked. Critical victimology, although has been a further advancement of the positivists, is usually criticised for portraying the real problems in as incomplete manner as the radicals. This is because it fails to realize that the conception of who the victim really is changes when different political and social conditions change. Effectiveness of Victimisation surveys When a crime occurs, different people may react in different ways. A certain category of people might report the crime as soon as it occurs. While others, especially youngsters would require emotional and financial assistance that may be provided by the government or NGOs. In accordance with Louw et al. (1998), the factors that are decisive to the victims’ responses are awareness, accessibility and effectiveness of perceptions associated with these organisations. All these three might not apply in all cases and so the youngsters may not actually be ‘participative’ in the entire crime justice procedure. Louw et al. (1998) also suggests that the first issue with the carrying out of the victimisation surveys is the fact that young people are less likely to report certain crimes and even if they do, particular details might disturb them. Only half (44 percent) of the victims of violence report what they have been subjected to because of the excessively traumatic conditions of the victim. For instance, a girl who has been raped might not be keen to discuss her ‘experience’ quite openly. Similarly, it has been observed that usually serious property crimes are reported while the usage of socially unacceptable drugs and violent interpersonal crimes, that are usually very common among young people, are generally not reported. Further, according to a survey carried out by Louw et al. (1998), a majority of young individuals do not participate or take assistance from statutory and voluntary sector. The statutory and voluntary sectors both usually provide emotional and financial assistance to the victims. The agencies involved with the government are usually responsible for the providing of money to the victims who cannot pay for the justice procedure whereas the NGOs are usually keen to help the victims by helping them cope up with their emotional stress and for providing clinical checkups for victims who have undergone physical violence. These organizations play an important role but the participation that they guarantee to the victims is limited as many young people do not trust them they ‘indicate inadequate investigation, poor service delivery and the unprofessional treatment of victims’. The more important issue is, as mentioned above, that there still is a debate on how the victimology techniques should be carried out. There are different perspectives of the term ‘victimiology’ which may not lead to a universal manner in which the justice may be restored. The process of victimisation may have different implications in different communities. While in some communities, victimisation may lead to the judging of the offender and the victim on the basis of social standing, other communities might take the victim to be self evident. As a consequence, there would be a higher chance of exploitation of the image of the victim in some societies while in others; the victim may not be well compensated because the offender may also be considered a ‘victim’ of the state. All in all, victimisation might direct to pluralistic systems of justice in one society. There are also other issues in the development of victim participation in youth justice Issues related to the development of victim participation There are various factors that may affect that may influence the manner in which the victims participate in youth justice. One way, as mentioned before, is the exploitation and manipulation of the image of the victim. The other is the politicization of the youngsters. The conservative party for instance gives lesser rights to the young victims while the labour party usually deems it necessary to facilitate the victims first. Along with the victims, the offenders are also empowered by organisations such as the YOTs. YOTs The Youth Offending teams had been initially designed to serve two purposes. The first one was to satisfy the victims that harm was actually done when a crime was carried out in order to reduce their fear of crime. The second, and the most important one, was to help make young people aware of their actions. According to Harland and Borich (2007), the purposes of the YOTs are served through different programs, action plans and projects that aim for information flow among the young individuals. However it seems that the YOTs are still not very effective in particular areas. Harland and Borich’s (2007) study shows that only 49% of the respondents stated that their YOTs were effective. Although 8% said that they were ‘very effective,’ this percentage was too less to demonstrate that the YOTs are in fact effective. Furthermore, only 13% stated that YOTs in general served a successful purpose. Conclusion To conclude, victimology and victimisation surveys have tried to increase victim participation in youth justice procedures. However, there still lie many issues that need to be resolved like the politicization of the youth, the pluralistic nature of the victimisation processes, and the lack of trust for the statutory and voluntary sector before the effectiveness can be improved. The approaches to the consideration of the offenders, particularly the YOTs, have been better alternatives but they too are not as effective as they should be. References Goodey, Jo. (2005). Victims and victimology: research, policy and practice. UK. Pearson Longman. Harland, A. and Borich, A. (2007). Evaluation of YOTs in New Zealand. New Zealand. Ministry of Justice. Louw, A. Shaw, M. Camerer, L. and Robertshaw, R. (1998). Responses to Victimsation. Crime in Johannesberg. Walklate, S. (1991). Victimology: The Victim and the Criminal Justice Process. UK. Unwin Hyman. Wolhuter, L. Olley, N. and Denham, D. (2008).Victimology: Victimisation and Victims' Rights. UK. Routledge-Cavendish. Question 2 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to devise a restorative justice plan that would lead to the effective justice procedures. First the paper would discuss restorative justice briefly, and then it would move onto the discussion of the strategies considered essential for the empowerment of victims and youngsters so as to make them more participative in criminal justice systems. In the beginning, the paper would try to formulate a restorative justice model which would help to achieve certain objectives. In doing so, the paper will address and appraise certain restorative models. It will also discuss the outcomes and the strategies used that may enhance youth victim participation. The extent to which the system would be restorative and the consequent effectiveness of the plan would be discussed at a later stage. Restorative systems According to Johnstone (2002), restorative justice refers to a term which emphasizes the repairing of the harm that is usually created by crime. In essence, restorative justice does not see the crime as a means of breaking the law. Rather it realises the fact that the breaking of law may also cause harm to certain individuals and the community as a whole. Therefore justice can only prevail if the harm that is created is well compensated as far as the victim is concerned. Restorative systems are generally better than traditional criminal systems because they view the ‘crime’ comprehensively. Rather than constricting the meaning of crime just to the breaking of law, it elaborates on a deeper meaning that constitutes of the recognition of the harm of individuals and communities. (Benefits of Restorative Justice) Restorative justice also involves more parties. For instance, rather than giving importance to just the government and the offenders, they also focus on the consideration of victims and communities. Further, success is measured by the extent to which harm has been compensated rather than by measuring the punishment that has been inflicted. There have been various models that have been designed to act as restorative systems. Before discussing the proposed model the paper would concentrate on them. Following are some illustrations. Restorative models The models that have been used widely include victim/offender mediation programs, conferencing programs, victim-offender panels, victims and prisoners assistance programs and community crime prevention programs. According to Russell (2001), victim/ offender mediation programs make the use of trained mediators who help build bridges between the victims and the offenders who can discuss the issue together. Conferencing programs take this to a greater height by involving relatives and friends too. Victim/offender panels bring together the victims and the offenders of similar crimes so that they can share together their respective experiences. The victim/prisoner assistance programs, on the other hand, have been used to provide emotional assistance to both the victim, to cope up with the trauma of the crime, and the prisoner, to help him/her deal with the guilt. All in all, there have been many restorative models used over the past few years. The plan proposed by the paper is somewhat similar to these models. The empowerment plan For the purpose of restoring justice among individuals, especially young people, it would be important to devise a plan that facilitates both the offenders and victims. The empowerment plan, as Barton (2003) relates, is one example. The paper would adopt the empowerment plan for the restoring of justice because of the outcomes that may result if the plan is implemented. The Approach The empowerment plan would not just focus on the punishing of the individuals who have broken the law. That, as Barton (2003) reports, is something that is on the ‘surface.’ In order to make the plan more successful, it is important to make distinction between surface and deep approaches. A surface approach is the one whereby only tangible agreements and material outcomes are given importance. These may include compensation to the victims that are provided by various offender/victim mediation programs. It is true that harm has to be compensated and the offender has to be penalised. However, these material outcomes do not do justice to the idea of restorative justice as far as reconciliation and ‘healing’ is concerned. The basic purpose in such systems should be the healing of the effects of the crime, in particular the emotional harm and isolation that is experienced by both the victims and offenders after a crime takes place. Keeping this mind, the empowerment plan would adopt a ‘deeper’ approach. This means that in essence all stakeholders would be consulted and would be allowed to express themselves. This may include the victim, the offender, their families and also certain members of the community. By adopting this deep approach, both parties would be helped and encouraged to collaborate with each other. The empowerment plan would also make a distinction between legal and moral matters. Most of the cases that are considered by the criminal justice system are usually considered as legal matters. Legal matters themselves are a means to a surface approach because they are keener on the considering of the crime as a violation of the law and nothing more. Professionals usually fail to realize that the legal matter may also be a violation of the morals of individuals. This does not necessarily mean that professionals should and would not be involved in the process. Rather they should and would be a part of the justice system too but they would be trained in such a manner that they give importance to both legal and moral matters both. This can be done by changing the educational structure of the lawyers and judges and also in particular the police. The model would also focus on the primary and secondary stakeholders. In an ideal restorative justice system, all the parties should be given importance; however, it is important to make a distinction between the primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders comprise of the victim/offender and their families, communities etc. while the secondary stakeholders include organisations, for instance NGOs and other agencies, involved in the process. Secondary stakeholders generally are not so keen about the’ just’ results of any proceeding. For most of them, there is an indirect motive, usually relating to profit. These organizations may also be misleading for some individuals as self interest is the basic motive for most of these agencies. Hence, their inclusion is important to some extent but not as important as the involvement of the primary stakeholders. Here there is a limit to the restorative nature of the justice system. Ideally all parties should be given importance. However there are some that are more critical than others. The plan would also focus separately one individual and community empowerment. The community is as an essential part of the restorative justice system because it comprises of all the supporters that may care for the offenders and the victims. Community empowerment is very important as it may lead to the reconciliation of two parties in a more proper and harmonious way, according to Barton (2003). However, community empowerment without the victim and the offender would not make sense. Hence, for the plan, community empowerment should be an objective, but it should not in any wrong way affect the objective of the individual’s empowerment. Similarly, decision making powers in terms of the determination of the eligibility of the courts should and would lie in the hands of the community. Focusing on reconciliation and healing also requires a focus on a much neglected area of the criminal justice system that is the criminal victim justice. Because of the harm that is caused by the victimsation of certain individuals, it is imperative to provide the victim with a fair and just process. However, it is equally important to make them realise that the crime is not just a matter between the offender and the state. Rather it should be portrayed as a matter between the offender and the victim. Justice and fair treatment are the rights of both the offenders and the victims. This is what the model realises as its main principle. To make sure that the victims are an essential part of the investigation process, the model would not accept victim attendances that are less than fifty percent. Similar to the victims, the offenders may also be ensured their rights by the employing of certain organization such as the YOTs that would help in the education of the offenders. The effectiveness of the model can be assessed not by the traditional manner in which the punishments inflicted determine the success of the proceedings. Rather the method would be based on the calculation of the compensation of harm. This harm would not just mean the material compensations but also the healing process. The effectiveness, as Barton (2003) relates, could be improved by the carrying out of surveys and talks that include both the offenders and victims. The Objectives and Outcomes Although the objectives have been discussed in a lot of detail before, it is important to clearly specify them and the resultant outcomes. If the empowerment model is implemented properly, the likely result would be a transfer of power from the state to the community. The community would be given greater importance. Although the state would still be a major player, yet the empowerment of the community would be enhanced in the future. The second outcome would be the increased use of the FCG or the Family Group Conferences which would mean that the victims and offenders would be empowered by the inclusion of their relatives. The third and the most important outcome would be the increased powers that the victims might possess. This would ensure that the experiences of the victims are better understood. As a consequence they would not just be considered ‘clients.’ Rather their problems would be greatly understood and analysed. The implication of the above mentioned outcomes would lead to another more dynamic result. There would be reduced crime and the offenders, through organizations like YOTs, would be educated about the problems with the law and the harm created by certain crimes. The community would be a well knit, united one. Conclusion To conclude, the empowerment plan is essential for the solution of the problems that are caused by various crimes. This is because it does not just allocate powers to the state but also provides ample empowerment to the victims, offenders and the community. References Barton, C. (2003). Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model. UK. Hawkins Press. Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice:  ideas, values, debates. UK. Willan. Site Editor. Benefits of Restorative Justice. 2010. Available from (Accessed 13 August 2010) Walklate, S. (1991). Victimology: The Victim and the Criminal Justice Process. UK. Unwin Hyman. Read More