Thursday, 23 March 2017

Victimology and Restorative Justice

Discuss in detail the difference between distributive and restorative justice? Retributive justice is more or less what is practiced in the United States. The justice system is oriented mainly toward punishing the offender, not making the victim whole again. In restorative justice, the focus is on the victim. Any penalty assessed on the offender is at least partly paid to the victim, and punishment of the offender is, at best, a secondary goal. Retributive systems occasionally have some restorative components, but they don’t always work well. An offender may be required to pay restitution to the victim in addition to (or in place of) fines, but a lot of fines are never paid. It wouldn’t be any different with restitution. Retributive justice places a primary emphasis on punishment of a wrong committed. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is an example of a retributive punishment. Restorative justice places a primary emphasis on rehabilitating the offender, the victim, and the community. A restorative sentence or punishment could include paying restitution plus treble damages. Restorative justice is a set of principles or values which primarily are focused on how to make right the wrongs. The processes typically require inclusive processes that involve all stakeholders, in an effort to address the harm. Retributive justice is more focused on blaming an offender and focused on him or her receiving their just deserts CITATION Idr10 \l 1033 (Idriss, et al. 2010). Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of the need to satisfy the rules of law or the need of the community to give out punishments. Victims are given an active role in a dispute and offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, “to repair the harm they’ve done-by apologizing, returning stolen money, or (for example) doing community service”. Restorative justice is based on a theory of justice that focuses on crime and wrong doing as acted against the individual or community rather than authorities. Retributive Justice Restorative Justice Misbehaviour/offenses are committed against authorities and are violations of rules of law or policies. Misbehaviour/offenses are defined as acts against victims and the community, which violate people and community trust. Accountability is equated with suffering. If offenders are made to suffer enough (I.e. expulsion or suspension) they have been held accountable. Accountability is defined as taking responsibility for behaviours and repairing the harm resulting from those behaviours. Success is measured by how much reparation was achieved. Offenders are defined by the Misbehaviour/offense. Victim is defined by material and psychological loss. Offenders are defined by their capacity to take responsibility for their actions and change behaviour. Victims are defined by losses and capacity to participate in the process for recovering losses and healing. Misbehaviour/offenses are the result of individual choice with individual responsibility. Offender is accountable to authorities for the misbehaviour or offense. Offender is accountable to the victim and the community. Misbehaviour/offenses are the result of individual choice with individual responsibility. Misbehaviour/offenses have both individual and social dimensions and are the result of individual choice and the conditions that lead to the behaviour. Offenders are defined by the misbehaviour/offense. Victim is defined by material and psychological loss. Offenders are defined by their capacity to take responsibility for their actions and change behaviour. Victims are defined by losses and capacity to participate in the process for recovering losses and healing. Distinguish between primary and secondary victimization. Explain some of the responses of different categories of crime victims to initial victimization. A crime victim is the the person to whom harm was done of who suffered physical or emotional loss as a result of the commission of the offence. Primary victimization is more of a psychological concept than a legal one, but crime and the legal system can cause it. It involves the effects of being a victim and is often directly related to the severity of the crime and how you personally handle it. One person might suffer more serious effects from a mugging than another because one victim might have superior physical and psychological capacities to cope with the ordeal CITATION Can051 \l 1033 (Crime 2005). Secondary Victimization Secondary victimization can involve much of the same trauma and effects as primary victimization, but its distinction is that it’s typically caused by external, not internal, stimuli. Primary victimization is mostly about how you deal with the crime, whereas secondary victimization relates to how those around you deal with it. For example, if you’re maimed as the result of a crime, others might be turned off or alarmed by your appearance. If your job depends on your appearance, you might lose it CITATION Myr06 \l 1033 (Myrstol and Chermak 2006). The National Criminal Justice Reference Service defines secondary victimization as “negative social or societal reaction.” Crime affects everyone differently. Victimization often causes trauma and depending upon the level of trauma that a person has already experienced in their lifetime, crime can be devastating. In general, victimization often impacts people on an emotional, physical, financial, psychological, and social level. One of the responses might be become a victim of crime. They may even pretend that it did not happen at all. These reactions can last for a few moments or they may be present for months and even years. It is not uncommon for victims to assume a ‘childlike’ state and may even need to be cared for by others for some time. It is also common for victims to feel as though the crime occurred when they were in a dreamlike state. Also, victims may be angry with God, the offender, service providers, family members, friends, the criminal justice system, or even themselves. Many victims experience strong desires for revenge or getting even. Hate may even felt by victims. These strong emotions are often disapproved of by the rest of society, which can leave the victim feeling like an outcast. It is certainly justified for victims to feel anger toward the person or people who harmed them. Many victims are frustrated by the feelings of helplessness or powerlessness that surface when the crime takes place. This can be especially true if victims were unable to fend off an offender, call for help or run away. After the crime, victims may continue to feel frustration if they cannot access the support and information that is necessary to their healing. It is common for victims to feel terror or fear following a crime that involved a threat to one’s safety or life, or to someone else a victim cares about. Fear can cause a person to have panic attacks if they are ever reminded of the crime. Fear can last for quite some time following the commission of a crime and under certain circumstances, it can become debilitating. Fear or terror that becomes overwhelming is unhealthy and victims should consult their family physician about it as soon as possible. Another response might be Blaming oneself is common. Many victims believe they were “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” If the victim does not have someone to blame, they will often blame themselves. Guilt is also common when no offender is found. Later on, when reflecting upon the crime, victims might feel guilty for not doing more to prevent what happened. Lastly, some victims will experience ‘survivor guilt’ – they feel guilty that they survived while someone else was injured or even killed. If a loved one is murdered, surviving family and friends may even blame the victim. Some victims may blame themselves, particularly victims of sexual abuse/assault or domestic violence. In crimes involving sexual acts, offenders often degrade the victim by making them do humiliating things. Victims of rape, for example, have long-lasting feelings of “being dirty”, and those feelings cannot be “washed away.” Some victims even feel self-hatred because they believe that they can no longer be loved by those who are close to them. Show how victim precipitation theory and lifestyle theory, explain criminal behaviour in Kenya today Victim-precipitation theory also helps to explain intimate killings when an abusive partner, usually a male, murders his mate. A detailed analysis of Australian homicides revealed male-female homicides to be largely an issue of male control, in which men were provoked either by another man competing for the affections of the same woman or by the woman showing interest in another man: “The overriding theme that runs through these killings is masculine control, where women become viewed as possessions of men, and the violence reflects steps taken by males either to assert their domination over ‘their’ women, or to repel males who they feel are attempting to control their sexual partner.”4 This example demonstrates the care that must be taken when examining the intricate dynamics of interpersonal conflict. Suggesting that abused women who were murdered by their batterers played an active role in their own victimization may be interpreted as victim blaming. Victim provocation, the third dimension of the victim-precipitation theory, has received a lot of research attention. Victim provocation suggests that the victim is the primary cause of his or her victimization. From this perspective, “precipitation criminal events are social interactions that resemble “dramaturgical events.”19 Like actors in a play, the victim and offender engage in a back-and-forth performance, often in front of an audience. But usually the outcome of the criminal event is not scripted. That is, the actions of one actor depend on those of the other, and so the final outcome is not totally predictable. Each actor reads and interprets the other’s actions and then reacts in a manner he or she thinks appropriate. The manner in which people have co-operated in Kenya has led to emergence of some crimes. Some Stories on Kenyan media houses have described instances where people have initiated a skirmish and have got themselves victimised instead. Lifestyle stands as the centrepiece of the theory of personal victimization because it is the patterned routines of a person’s everyday activities that predict the chances of exposure to criminogenic situations. After all, if a victim and an offender never come into contact, a personal victimization cannot occur. In addition to influencing personal victimization directly through exposure to various situational environments CITATION Wim09 \l 1033 (Wimmer and Dominic 2009), lifestyle also affects one’s risk of victimization indirectly by structuring personal associations. That is, the people with whom one associates also determine one’s exposure to risk of personal victimization. People who associate regularly with others engaged in unlawful behaviour are more likely to be victimized, because of their increased exposure to high-risk situations and environments. In Kenya, the lifestyle theory has indicated to the commitment of major crimes. Students from various local universities have been injured and even killed in fighting sprees in pubs and other game-playing stations CITATION Wor06 \l 1033 (Bank 2006). The lavish lifestyles of such people have encountered victimization; therefore, asserting the reality of the lifetime theory. References BIBLIOGRAPHY Bank, World. “Country Social Analysis.” worldbank.org. May 2006. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEV/Resources/3177394-1168615404141/RepublicofKenya-CountrySocialAnalysis.pdf (accessed August 9, 2015). Crime, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of. “The Impact of Victimization.” crcvc. October 2005. http://www.crcvc.ca/docs/victimization.pdf (accessed August 9, 2015). Idriss, Manar, Manon Jendly, Jacqui Karn, and Massimiliano Mulone. “INTERNATIONAL REPORT CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES.” crime-prevention-intl.org. 2010. http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Crime_Prevention_and_Community_Safety_ANG.pdf (accessed August 9, 2015). Myrstol, Brad A, and Steven M Chermak. “Victimology.” abiongman.com. 2006. http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/1893/1938583/CH_15_web.pdf (accessed August 9, 2015). Wimmer, Roger D, and Joseph R Dominic. “Research in Media Effects.” October 2009. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAFahUKEwjd5c7W5pzHAhXBWxQKHXqQDsg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rogerwimmer.com%2Fmmr9e%2FMedia%2520Effects%2520MMR%25209e.doc&ei=-7LHVZ38NMG3UfqgusAM&usg=AFQjCNFY6aoyIA (accessed August 9, 2015).

No comments:

Post a Comment