Victimisation and Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Heading: Victimization essay Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Question 1 Introduction The administration of justice process in Australia and other countries like Canada and New Zealand have substantially gone through several modifications in order to ensure that the justice process is enhanced. The traditional juvenile court systems have been essential in the past years, in the recent years this has however changed and key stakeholders are looking for appropriate legislation modification in the justice process in order to ensure that chances of victimization are reduced as well as the rates of crime occurrence. Crime reoccurrence are usually committed by the same criminals who have been subject to the court system and possibly finished their term in jail. As a result of increased recidivism rates in Australia, initiation of new legislations and procedures that address crime related cases have been established in the past few decades. The Young Offenders Act 1997 in New South Wales is a good example of a legislation that has seen the introduction or conferencing which is a procedure that ensures active involvement of all the stakeholders of a case such as the victims, offenders, their families and other focused groups in the society. By doing so, the rate of recidivism rates and victimization is minimized as pointed out in this paper. Restorative justice Harms of victimisation and crime Prevent crime from re-occurring As stated by Umbreit (2008, p. 13) restorative justice is a process which is victim-centered to crime and thus allowing the offender, victim and their families to be involved in the process of addressing the consequences of the crime. The rationale for restorative justice is to ensure active involvement in the process by holding the offender responsible for the offense before the community that he/she has violated. It also provides the opportunity to restore the emotional and material losses that the victim of incurred to the best degree. Unlike the usually court and imprisonment procedure, the offender is offered an opportunity to be integrated back into the community and thus strengthening community safety. Restorative justice has been implemented in different countries including the U.S. Canada, New Zealand and Australia (Siegel & Welsh 2011). As stated by Luke & Lind (2002, p. 2) in New South Wales, the Young Offenders Act 1997 which was enacted in 1998 allows conferencing of young offenders and giving options of warnings. The rationale for this enactment was to provide an alternative court process in the New South Wales. In conferencing, the young offender is subject to the family, victims and other community support people. The offender is made to accept responsibility for his/her wrongdoing before these people in order to facilitate a smooth reintegration into the community (Daly 2008, p.35). Unlike the traditional court system, conferencing allows community involvement and thus allowing the offender a chance to state her side of the story. This is important process in determining if the offender is wrong and if the victim has a substantial proof that the offender indeed committed the offence, in doing so chances of being victimized are substantially reduced (Jaishankar 2009). As noted by Luke & Lind (2002, p. 2) and Hoyle & Young (2002 p.102) the active involvement of the community enhances restorative justice and critical for reducing recidivism rates of juvenile. This is because of the active involvement of all stakeholders in the justice process. More so, the presence of the families of the offender and the offended largely contributes to the strengthening of community relationship and thus contributing to reduced rates of crime reoccurrence. Because all the stakeholders involved in the process understand the situation better than the traditional court system, justice can be fully attained hence brining both emotional and psychological satisfaction to the victim as well as making the offender liable for his/her wrongdoings before the community and also contributing to the reintegration process into the community. This makes it hard for the offender to repeat the wrongdoing again and hence reducing the overall recidivism rates among the offenders (Welsh 2007). As shown by Luke & Lind (2002, p. 4) research has shown that conferencing reduces reoffending or recidivism rates by up to 15 to 20% across varied offences types irrespective of the criminal history, age, gender and aboriginality of the wrongdoers. These statistics are as compared to the normal court procedure n the same region. It is thus clear that conferencing reduces chances of victimization as well as the rate of crime reoccurrence. Conclusion This paper has clearly elaborated the implication of conferencing and restorative justice in the process of ensuring reduced rates of crime. The active involvement of the community through the involvement of key stakeholders of the case such as the victim, the offender, the offender’s family and other individuals from the community are essential in the reduction of recidivism rates as well as victimization. Considering that the offender and the victim are both subject to questions by the community, chances of victimization are reduced. The victim of the wrongdoing also is able to gain both psychological and emotional redemption from the process because the offender is made responsible for the mistake in the victim’s presence. As also established, unlike the traditional court systems, justice is fully gained through restorative justice or conferencing. More so, statistics has also revealed a reduction of about 15 to 20 % in the recidivism rates as compared to the traditional court system irrespective of the offence, age, criminal history, gender and even aboriginality of the offender. This finding clearly re-emphasizes the importance of conferencing as better justice system. References Daly, K 2008, Girls, ‘Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice,’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 41, no.3. pp. 23-37. Hoyle C & Young, R 2002, New visions of crime victims, Hart Publishing, New York. PP. 100-109. Jaishankar, K 2009, International Perspectives on Crime and Justice, K. Jaishankar, Sydney. Luke, G & Lind, B 2002, Reducing Juvenile Crime: Conferencing versus Court. Contemporary issue in crime and justice. vol. 69. no.2. p.1-20. Siegel, LJ & Welsh, BC 2011, Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law, Cengage Learning, Thousand Oaks. Umbreit, MS 2008, Family Group Conferencing: Implications for Crime Victims, DIANE Publishing, Sydney. PP. 12-21. Welsh, BC 2007, Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims and Places, Springer, Melbourne. Question 2 Introduction Male victims of domestic violence are often neglected by the society and the legislative system because of the poor understanding or regard of its statistical prevalence. It is therefore a problem for male victims to be recognized, protected, and provided with supportive services and access to justice. This essay elaborates in-depth about these issues. Recognition as victims According to Kimmel (2005, p.198) emphasize that men are often not recognized as victims of domestic violence despite the research showing that men are as often victims of domestic violence as women. Unfortunately women are often regarded as victims because of their perceived weak gender. As shown by Kimmell (2010, p.100) there is a gender symmetry in domestic violence and hence the need to recognize men as victims of domestic violence. This derailed misconception is thus a major obstacle in the recognition of men as victims of domestic violence. Another major obstacle is the poor or unclear legislations that provides for the recognition of men as victims of violence, this is in contrary to the clearly outlined legislations targeting women as victims of domestic violence (Great Britain & Parliament 2008, p. 102). The society also adds to the obstacles by not recognizing men as victims of domestic violence and hence leading to increased unreported cases of men victims of domestic violence. This is because of the perception that the male gender is dominant and thus not possible to be a victim of domestic violence but rather a perpetuator of the same. As revealed by Hamel & Nicholls (2007, p. 304) the assumed low rates (about 5 %) of male victims is totally wrong and misleading. This is thus a major obstacle to male victims. Protection As a result of less recognition of men as victims of domestic violence, there is less legislation addressing the plight of men as victims of domestic violence (Great Britain & Parliament 2008, P. 102). This has thus been a major obstacle in protecting men as victims of domestic violence. The society in most countries does not recognize male domestic abuse as compared to female and thus providing less protection to such victims. It is seldom reported of any protective steps that are aimed at curbing escalation of male abuse in a domestic setting, instead more of such protective measures have usually if not always been directed towards female protection. More so, ill-informed attitudes coupled with inadequate funding results in less protection of male victims as compared to the protection that has been directed towards female protection. In essence, the less percentage of female prosecution as a result of domestic violence is also another indicator of less protection directed towards male victims. Contrary to the provisions of Sex Equality and Human Rights law, there is an evident marginalized protection of female and children protection against domestic violence as compared to men (Berns 2004). Support service Because of the less recognition and protection of male victims of domestic violence, there are also less supportive programs or services directed towards them. As compared to the thousands of initiatives an supportive services targeting women, it is noteworthy to acknowledge how the government and the society has given less regard to men victims of domestic violence (Kimmel 2005, p.192). Despite the research showing symmetrical representation of male and female domestic abuse, supportive services are not equal as the majority of the supportive initiatives are directed towards the female gender. The biasness based on the perception of male-on-female domestic violence as evident by the government initiatives has proved a major obstacle on the provision of supportive services to men victims (Great Britain & Parliament 2008, P. 102). The main problem is thus the government led initiatives that are not balanced in the provision of supportive services which is as a result of poor recognition of male victims in domestic violence cases. According to Great Britain & Parliament (2008, P. 103) men are treated as second-class citizens because of the inadequate understanding on the nature of nature of male victims in a domestic violence. This is reflected by the rarity of supportive programs for violent women. Access to justice According to Great Britain & Parliament (2008, P. 102) research done by the government reveals that one third to one half of the domestic violence cases in England and Wales are usually male. This statistics is closely related to other countries including Australia. Despite this significant proportion, it is reported that only about 5 % of the prosecutions and convictions are female. As stated by Berns (2004) despite the almost equivalent cases of domestic violence affecting both genders, access to justice is mainly focused towards women as compared to men. More so, there are scantly if any instituted legislations which provides for male victims to access justice. The poor perception and derailed understanding of the prevalence of women offenders in domestic violence is the leading obstacle for most men victims seeking justice in the courts (Choo 2003, p.15). Despite the provisions of Sex Equality and Human Rights law, male treatment does not meet the threshold of this provision in most countries, whether developed or developing, it is however more prevalent in developing countries. The court systems and legislations being enacted have also continued to neglect male victims in their procedures and thus escalating the already worsened female dominated justice system (Byrnes 2009, 135). Conclusion It is clear that poor recognition, protection and provision of supportive services have continually denied male domestic violence victims and opportunity to access justice like their female counterparts. The major obstacles for men in this case are poor legislations and derailing perception that female are the only victims of domestic violence. References Berns, N 2004, Framing the victim: domestic violence, media, and social problems, Aldine de Gruyter, New Jersey. Byrnes, A 2009, Bills of Rights in Australia: History, Politics and Law, UNSW Press, New South Wales. PP. 131-143. Choo, C 2003, ‘Suellen Murray, More Than Refuge: Changing Responses to Domestic Violence,’ Journal of Australian Studies, vol.12, no.4.pp.12-19. Great Britain & Parliament 2008, Domestic Violence, Forced Marriage and 'honour'-Based Violence: Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, The Stationery Office, London. PP. 100-110. Hamel, J & Nicholls, TL 2007, Family interventions in domestic violence: a handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment, Springer Publishing Company, Sydney. P.304 Kimmel, MS 2005, The gender of desire: essays on male sexuality, SUNY Press, Canberra.190-210. Kimmell, M 2010, Misframing men: the politics of contemporary masculinities, Rutgers University Press, Sydney. PP. 98-109. Read More