Theoretical Perspectives on Victimology - Term Paper Example

 «Victimology and Restorative Justice» Element I Victims, Victimology and Restorative Justice Introduction The concept of victimology is intricately tied to restorative justice in that the latter focuses attention on reparations of the harm suffered by the victim, the community and the offender as a result of crime (Strang and Sherman 2003, 15). This paper examines the influences of victomology and corresponding victims movements on contemporary youth practices. In order to accomplish this task this paper looks at the interplay between victomology and victimization theories and surveys and their contribution to the amalgamation of the victim and the offender in restorative justice assumptions and practices. The focus throughout is on youth services relative to juvenile offenders and those whom they victimize. I. Key Terms Defined A. Victim Karmen (2009) explains that crime victims, are referred to by laws prohibiting specific conduct as the recipients of the harm emanating from that conduct and as such are entitled to some form of “redress” (30). Crime-victims’ rights movements in the 1980s and the1990s have changed the way that crime victims are viewed and takes them “beyond the evidentiary need of the prosecution in a court of law” (Weed 1995, ix). Victims are now perceived as encapsulating a wider range of casualties including the community, the virtual complainant and the offender (Rabin 2005, 248). B. Victimology Victimology is “a social-structural way of viewing crime and the law and the criminal and the victim” (5). Victomology focuses on providing insight on the victim which necessarily include the offender and society as a whole (Burgess et al 2009, 5). Victimology is characterized as a “sub-discipline” of criminology because although the latter focuses on crime and offenders and Victimology directs attention to the victims and crime. Victimisation Victimisation is divided into primary and secondary victimisation. Primary victimization is used to refer to the experiences of the victim relative to the offence “committed against” the victim (Wloheter et al, 2008, 33). Secondary victimization refers to how victims are treated by the criminal justice systems including the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the police (Wolhuter et al 2008, 33). C. Restorative Justice Braithwaite (1999) describes restorative justice as “informal justice” which is designed to restore victims, offenders and communities “as a result of participation of a plurality of stakeholders” (1). Marshall (1999) explains that restorative justice is not a specific practice but rather a set of principles (5). One of these principles is described as permitting “personal involvement of those mainly concerned” especially the offender, the victim, the victim’s families and communities (Marshall 1999, 5). Another principle is the viewing of crime as a social factor. The third principle takes a “forward-looking” or rather a “preventative problem-solving orientation” (Marshall 1999, 5). Finally, restorative justice is predicated on the principle of “flexibility of practice” (Marshall 1999, 5). II. Theoretical Perspectives on Victimology and Victimisation Surveys A. Positivist Victimisation Positivist victimisation theory is grounded in scientific approaches to victimisation in the sense that surveys ought to focus only on those factors that can observed objectively. It therefore focuses on that which can be observed publically and disregards largely uncorroborated private crimes such as sexual assault (Marsh, Cochrane and Melville 2005, 109). In this regard, positive victimisation theorists have come under attack for espousing the view that victims are to some extent responsible for the crimes committed against them (Marsh et al 2004, 108). Indeed there is some evidence that certain characteristics of individuals do make them vulnerable to certain crimes. For instance the disabled, the young and females may be at higher risk of being potential victims because of a lack of ability to resist offenders, to communicate or a general willingness to comply with an offender’s demand (Levinson 2002, 396). B. Radical Victimology Radical victimology departs from the positivist approach to blaming victims and permits an examination of the “innocent victim” within the context of the system’s “limited ability” to avenge victims particularly via victim assistance processes (McShane and Williams 1992, 258). Radical victimisation theory draws out victims who can be characterized as “invisible” (Marsh et al 2004, 110). These victims include victims of the police, war, the correctional institutions, state oppression and all other sorts of oppression. This approach to victim surveys has been largely influenced by victim movements calling for a greater participation of victims in the criminal justice process (Marsh et al 2004, 110). Radical victimology is criticized for assuming that individuals are aware of their specific social realities and that the state is essentially unbiased in its treatment of crime and victimisation (Marsh et al 2004, 111). C. Critical Victimology Critical victomolgy corresponds with radical victimology in that it focuses more intently on the essentially invisible victim (Marsh et al 2004, 111). What distinguishes critical victiimology from postivist victimology is that the latter studies victim identification and the former studies “social processes which victimize some persons and not others” (Walklate 1990, 25). The difficulty with critical victimology studies and researches is that it does not offer an explanation for who is labeled and the labeling is determined (Walklate 1990, 17). III. Effectiveness of Victimisation Surveys Until processes for conducting victimisation surveys were developed, criminologists were left to depend on statistics and official records for finding an understanding of victimisation and offender patterns (Fisher and Lab 2010, 340). According to Wolhuter et al (2008) national victimisation surveys have a tendency to “make broad generalizations about the extent of crime” and the “frequency with which people may statistically become victims” (38). For instance a British Crime Survey (BSC) conducted in 1984 concluded that an individual over the age of 16 could, based on a statistical analysis, become a robbery victim each 500 years and/or suffer an assault injury at least once in every 100 years (Wolhuter et al 2008, 38). However, to meet the shortfall associated with this survey in that it did not provide data specific to the degree of crime in decaying cities, the Home Office sponsored a crime survey in the Nottingham area. Findings were that persons living in decaying cities were at an increased risk of being crime victims (Wolhuter et al 2008, 38). Several local surveys during the 1980s revealed persons living in improvised areas (for example the Islington Crime Survey) experience more crime than that which is reflected in the national statistics. In fact one third of households had experienced burglary, robbery and/or sexual assaults in a one year period. The Islington survey also determined that relatively young white females in the impoverished areas of Islington were “29 times more likely to be assaulted than white females over 45 years” (Wolhuter 2008, 39). Crime surveys such as the Islington Crime Survey attempt to reveal crimes that go unreported. Essentially, the survey discovered that there were more sexual assaults than the numbers officially reported. In order to gain a greater understanding of why there is a disparity between actual crimes and reported crimes, these surveys attempt to solicit data on the public’s attitudes and expectations of the performance of police and other officials. Attitudes toward the penal system and culpability are also the subject of a number of victimisation surveys. These survey findings help to explain why crimes go unreported (Wolhuter et al 2008, 39). Essentially, what researchers eventually gain is an understanding of the factors that contribute to offending, victimisation and participating in the criminal justice system and process by the victim and the community at large as a means to prevent offending generally. Victimisation urveys like any population study provides a logistical premises for determining cause and effect (Sherman and Strang 2007, 48). IV. Victim Participation For much of the 1980s, non-statutory and community oriented movements were developed in he UK which were aimed at fostering more desirable outcomes relative to the criminal justice system. Restorative justice which is the primary policy of the Home Office’s youth justice processes took on greater significance in that attention was focused on victim reparation, mediation, conciliation, victim assistance, diversions and preventing offending and re-offending (Mestitz and Ghetti 2005, 23). This was especially so with the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduces multi-agency partnership under youth offending teams (Yots) which coordinate juvenile justice services (Junger-Tas and Decker 2010, 66). Yots brings together a variety of agents such as social services, police, health services, probation and education administrators because they have mutual “interest in the problem of youth crime” (Morris and Maxwell 2001, 92). Victim involvement in this regard is actuated by staff members of Yots who organize and manage victim consultation, reparations and they may also contract the services of experts inclusive of voluntary and non-profit organizations (Morris and Maxwell 2001, 92). The idea is to provide “constructive, community-based responses to crime” by bringing together all persons and units that have a “stake in a specific offence to resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and any implications for the future” (White Paper 2002, paras 5.8 and 7.32). It is believed that resolving the issue of youth offending and offending generally can only be accomplished by society as a whole (Collins and Cattermole 2006, 183-184). Restorative justice programs which are primarily used for youth offenders have been expanding in the UK (Mesititz and Ghetti 2005 30). The success of restorative justice in terms of recidivism was manifested by a random population sample study in Canberra. In this study it was found offenders comprised of white persons below the age of 30 who had been relegated to restorative justice programs showed a decrease in arrest rates by 84 for each 100 offenders (Sherman and Strang 2007, 68). Some tests however, show no real difference in reoffending upon the uptake of restorative justice. However, the findings were compared to recidivism of offenders who had been talked to by police (Sherman and Strang 2007, 68). Conclusion This focus on community involvement and the victim is a refreshing approach to crime. Previously, crime was the subject of politicization in that governments shaped criminal justice policies based on political inclinations (Bingham 1994, 2). For example, much of the politicization have been run on platforms designed to get tough on offenders and therefore focused far too sharply on retributive justice. Restorative justice via the auspices of Yots offers a new way to focus on youth offending in a way that follows logistical evidence and responds effectively to cause and effect. This has been made possible by the various victimology theories guiding victimisation surveys. Element 2 A Restorative Justice Implementation Plan Introduction Having examined the conceptual basis of restorative justice in the context of victimology and victimisation in the previous part of this paper, attention is now focused on the implementation of a restorative justice plan. This plan capitalizes on the effectively responding to the social context of crime and crime victims with a view to perpetuating victim empowerment and offender responsibility. In order to justify the plan, this part of the paper will begin by explaining the theoretical basis of restorative justice and how it takes into account the special position of the youth offender and the need for retribution by the victim and the community. I. Restorative Justice Restorative justice proponents take the position that the criminal justice process ought to depart from retributive justice tools and work toward restorative objectives as the key method for dealing with offenders and victims (Zemova 2007, 53). Restorative justice takes a more determined look at the fact that most offenders are returned to the community and any successful term of imprisonment is manifested by the ability of the offender to remain out of trouble once he or she is returned to the community. In other words, “we are all interdependent in a shrinking world: criminals, victims and the wider society” (Sherman and Strang 2007, 12). Procedural hypothesis takes the position that restorative justice is perceived by both the victim and the offender as a more civilized and “respectful” method for processing criminal conduct (Sherman and Strang 2007, 13). The effectiveness hypothesis takes the position that restorative justice is more effective than conventional justice for reducing recidivism, encourages reparations to the victim, reducing revengeful crimes and encourages “reconciliation and social bonds among families and friends affected by crime” and increases the number of offenders facing justice (Sherman and Strang 2007, 13). Ultimately, it is claimed that restorative justice provides the victim and the offender with greater satisfaction than conventional justice systems do. It is also believed to restore communities in ways that the conventional justice systems do not (Braithwaite 2001, 45). One of the primary successes of restorative justice is that it permits victims to resolve the issues that matter to them most or to “define restoration that matters to them” (Braithwaite 2002, 46). Similarly, restorative justice engages the conscience of the offender by bringing him face to face with the victim. The offender is forced to take into account the harm his criminal act caused, make reparations, demonstrate remorse and essentially take responsibility for his conduct. Moreover, restorative justice is compatible with reintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming theorized that offenders benefit in terms of deterrence when they suffer “pangs from conscience” as well as the “anticipated loss of respect in the eyes of significant others” (Masters 1998, 125). The fact is, restorative justice brings the offender into contact with these features. Restorative justice is perceived as more effective among youth offenders for a number of reasons. First they help juveniles to gain an understanding of the consequences of their conduct in terms of the harm to victims, families, the community and to themselves. Secondly, as an educational tool, restorative justice enlightens the juvenile with respect to providing “alternatives to measures that would deprive a youth of his or her liberty” (Dandurant and Griffiths 2006, 26). A number of restorative justice programs/models provide for diversionary measures that places the youthful offender in the realm of community supervision and care and among other juveniles (Dandurand and Griffiths 2006, 26). II. Restorative Justice Models Previously, restorative justice models were built around mediation between the victim and the offender. Newer models are now incorporating both victim and offender as well as individuals and bodies “from their surroundings” (Council of Europe 2000, 46). This group form of restorative justice models first appeared in New Zealand and Australia and in England on a trial basis (Council of Europe 2000, 46). Even so, today the most common model of restorative justice in Europe is the victim-offender mediation process. In the UK however, conference-based restorative justice models are more prevalent (Spuy, Parmentier and Dissel 2007, 93). Conference-based restorative justice involves calling together all parties that have been impacted by the offence in one form or another. It may not always be possible to get the victims into conference where they are in direct contact with the offender. This is understandable considering the level of outrage that the victim may feel. However, indirect mediation is possible through a third party (Sherman and Strang 2007, 33). Indirect mediation would include the going back and forth between victim and offender (Sherman and Strang 2007, 33). This way, the offender is made aware of the victim’s feelings and understands the harmful consequences of his conduct. Once gathered, the participants are asked to engage in discussion aimed at identifying how they were impacted by the offence and what they think is the appropriate method for making amends (Mestitz 2005, 30). Another form of conference-based restorative justice is the family group conferencing which calls together the young offender, his/her family and the victim and his/her supporters. In this atmosphere free an open discussion about the offence is encouraged with the victim being at liberty to “ask questions, and ask for reparation” (Mestitz et al 2005, 31). This permits a look into the causes behind the offending and leads to the creation of an action plan that makes provision for victim reparation and assistance to the young offender to prevent re-offending (Mestitz et al 2005, 31). The Thames Valley Police developed a restorative justice model known as restorative cautioning. This takes place under a police environment and does not necessarily involve the victim. It does however, involve the youth offender’s family. In each case, the victim’s views are either directly or indirectly passed on to the offender (Mestitz et al 2005, 31). This particular model does not appear to be the best option for an alternative method for rehabilitation and reintegration. It appears to be too far removed from both the victim and the offender, putting too much stock in police authority. The idea of restorative justice should be aimed at encouraging voluntary rehabilitation. With the police issuing a warning, the offender may feel that he/she got off too easily and this will not have much of a positive impact on deterrence. As for the victim, empowerment moves from the victim to the police and could leave the victim feeling alienated and unsatisfied. Community-based restorative justice models are spin-offs from probation and parole together with community sentences. Today there are several other options including supervision, restitution, community service, work release and electronic monitoring among others (Strickland 2004, 112). Community-based restorative justice models are compromised by the fact that it engages far too much state control and could have negative consequences for both the victim and the offender. From the victim’s perspective, the state’s domination could leave the victim largely as an outsider. Even so, the community-based restorative justice model does take account of the fact that the community suffers the harmful effects of crime and could be utilized with more victim involvement. III. Recommendations for a New Restorative Justice Model A conference/community-based restorative justice model appears to be the best system for both victim and offender participation and empowerment. A combined conference and community-based restorative justice model also takes account of the wider class of stake-holders such as families of both victim and youth offender and the community. It brings the offender into contact with those persons that his/her crime harmed both directly and indirectly. It also exemplifies the consequences of the offence via community service and victim restitution. By taking this approach, the offender is forced to accept the gravity of his conduct and this will inevitably engage his/her conscience. By engaging the youthful offender’s conscience it is believed that the offender will think twice before committing another offence. The community/conference based restorative model will commence with a specific period of community supervision where the youthful offender is required to engage in some form of community service reflective of culpability. This would be prefaced by family group conferencing where the offender and his/her supporters come face to face with the victim and his/her supporters. This family group conferencing should involve open dialogue permitting the victim to freely ask the offender questions about why the victim was targeted and discussions aimed at getting the offender to acknowledge the pain and suffering his conduct caused others. The fact is, combining community service and victim restitution with family group conferencing engages the activation of reintegrative shaming. The victim is shamed or is forced to confront under scrutiny his/her conduct and to make amends both to the community and the victim. The offender is also made aware of the gravity of his conduct by taking responsibility for community service and victim reparations and having to discuss the offence with the victim, the victim’s support group and the offender’s support group. If the offender is salvageable, the offender’s conscience will inform him/her that his conduct has injured individuals and the community either directly or indirectly. Community/Conference-based restorative justice should always be integrated into the criminal justice process. Although this may seem to go against the concept of voluntariness, a fair balance must be struck between leniency and sanctions. The leniency arises in the mere fact that the offender is not completely under state control in that, family group conferencing provides for free and open dialogue. Sanctions arise when the court mandates community supervision and makes an order for restitution. These two aspects are combined to dispense with any preconceived notions on the part of the victim that the offender is getting off far too leniently. Moreover, it is important for the young offender to know that there are consequences for his/her conduct if there is any hope of preventing re-offending. By taking this approach, the young offender is informed of both cause and effect and will more likely engage his conscience in the future. IV. Objectives and Outcomes The community/conference-based restorative justice model seeks to bring together all stakeholders including the community. It should serve as a learning experience for the youthful offender and at the same time help his/her family members take some responsibility for supervising and rehabilitating the offender. It also ensures that the offender pays his/her debts to society via community services and at the same time learn that unlawful conduct has consequences. The community/conference-based restorative justice model also empowers the victim and the victim’s support by providing the victim with a voice and permitting some form of closure and satisfaction beyond mere retribution. Restorative justice has been largely effective in terms of reducing recidivism (see Sherman and Strang 2007). In any event, effectiveness could be measured by following up on the youthful offender after the completion of the community service and victim restitution for the purpose of determining whether or not he/she re-offended. Early evidence of whether the offender is likely to re-offend by following up on the offender’s free reintegration into the community. If the offender is gainfully and lawfully employed or attending school, this will be a good indication that he/she has had pangs of conscience and is attempting to become a productive member of the community. Conclusion The community/conference-based restorative justice model provides a method by which each offence is treated in a highly individualistic way. It permits an exploration of the actual offender’s perspective and the victim’s perspective and takes account of the community’s interest in reintegrating the offender into the community. This model does not take for granted that all offenders are guided by the same motivation for criminal conduct and that not all victims have the same need for justice. Ultimately, the community/conference-based restorative justice model engages not only victim and offender participation in the criminal justice system, but also families and the community at large. All stakeholders are participants in one way or another. Works Cited Bingham, M. (1994) “The Politicisation of Crime” cited in Bryett, K. and Lewis, C. (eds) Un-Peeling Tradition: Contemporary Policing. Palgrave MacMillan Australia. Braithwaite, J. (1999) “Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts”. Crime and Justice, Vol. 25: 1-127. Braithwaite, J. (2002) Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press. Burgess, A.; Roberts, A. and Regehr, C. (2009) Victimology: Theories and Applications. Jones and Bartlett Learning. Collins, S. and Cattermole, R. (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour and Disorder: Powers and Remedies. Sweet and Maxwell. Council of Europe. (2000) Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe. Council of Europe. Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Dandurand, Y. and Griffiths, C. (2006) Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. United Nations Publications. Fisher, B. and Lab, S. (2010) Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, vol. 1. SAGE Publications. Green, S. (2008) “In the Name of the Victim: Manipulation and Meaning Within the Restorative Paradigm”. Victims and Mediation, APAV (Co-financed by the European Commission 2006 AGIS Programme) 1-273. Junger-Tas, J. and Decker, S. (2010) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice. Springer Publications. Karmen, A. (2009) Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Cengage Learning. Levinson, D. (2002) Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. SAGE. Marshall, T. (1999) “Restorative Justice: An Overview.” A Report by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. Home Office , Information and Publications Group. Marsh, I.; Cochrane, J. and Melville, G. (2004) Criminal Justice: An Introduction to Philosophies, Theories and Practice. Psychology Press. Masters, G. (1998) “The Importance of Shame to Restorative Justice” cited in Walgrave, L. (ed). Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Potentialities, Risks and Problems. Leuven University Press. McShane, M. and Williams, F. (April 1992) “Radical Victimology: A Critique of the Concept of Victim in Traditional Victimology” Crime Delinquency, Vol. 38(2): 258-271. Mestitz, A. and Ghetti, S. (2005) Victim-Offender Mediation with Youth Offenders in Europe. Springer Publications. Morris, A. and Maxwell, G. (2001) Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Hart Publishing. Rabin, J. (2005) Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, First Update Supplemental. CRC Press. Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007) “Restorative Justice: The Evidence”. The Smith Institute. Spuy, E.’ Parmentier, S. and Dissel, A. (2007) Restorative Justice: Politics, Policies and Prospects. Kluwer. Strang, H. and Sherman, L. (2003) “Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice”, Utah Law Review, Vol. 15(1): 15-42. Strickland, R. (2004) Restorative Justice. Peter Lang. Walklate, S. (1990) “Researching Victims of Crime: Critical Victimology” Social Justice, Vol. 17(3): 25-42. Weed, F. (1995) Certainty of Justice: Reform in the Crime Victim Movement. Transaction Books. White Paper (2002) “Justice for All”, Cm. 5563. Wolhuter, L.; Olley, N. and Denham, D. (2008) Victimology: Victimisation and Victims’ Rights. Taylor and Francis. Young, J. (Spring 1988) “Radical Criminology in Britain: The Emergence of a Competing Paradigm”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 28(2): 159-183. Zemova, M. (2007) Restorative Justice: Ideals and Realities. Ashgate Publishing. Read More