Victimology_and_Alternatives_to_the_Criminal_Justice_System

Victimology and alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system Jennifer Pavalinski University Of Phoenix Victimology and alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system The fathers of victimology were two German criminologists, Hans Von Hentig and Benjamin Mendelsohn (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d., p. 1). “They studied behaviors, characteristics, and vulnerabilities of crime victims. In 1937, Mendolsohn proposed a theory that suggested victims of crime possessed certain characteristics that made them more susceptible to being victimized” (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). This theory evolved as a result of the feminist movement. “According to the United States Department of Justice, “feminist leaders viewed the poor response of the criminal justice system to sexual assaults and domestic violence as the cause of women’s lack of status, power, and influence” (Young & Stein, 2004, p. 1). Feminists believed it was no longer alright to blame the victim and derived a new definition that was focused on power imbalance, which the victim suffered harm because of a situation that was out of her control (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2010, p. 1). There were many support groups and organizations that were developed because of the feminist movement, such as the National Organization For Victim Assistance (NOVA) who dedicate their time helping victims in need. Because of these organizations, some victims don’t necessarily feel like they are victims, instead, they may consider themselves survivors. As the meaning of victimology evolved, so did the treatment of victims by the criminal justice system. “In the days when victimology blamed the victim, too often they were treated poorly by law enforcement and judicial officials.” (Young & Stein, 2004, p. 1) Criminal Justice officials saw the need for change when a U.S. Department of Justice study done in 1974 revealed, “the biggest failure in criminal prosecuting came because witnesses refused to help a justice system that didn’t care about their needs.” (Young & Stein, 2004, p. 1) This study created the development of programs and trainings to show officers the proper way to handle victims and give them the opportunities for help. In this paper, alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system will be discussed. The areas of restorative justice, peacemaking strategies, and shaming will be examined to offer possible solutions to crime. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Albert Eglash is credited with coining the term “restorative justice” who looked for differentiations between what he viewed as three distinct types of criminal justice. The first one relates to retributive justice which the focus is on punishing offenders for their actions (Levinson, n.d., p. 1389). The second one is associated with “distributive justice”, where the main importance is laid on the rehabilitation of offenders. The third speaks of “restorative justice” that he linked to the principle of restitution (Levinson, n.d., p. 1389). He connected the term with an approach that attempts to address the harmful consequences of the offenders actions by looking to actively involve the victim and the offender in a process aimed at getting compensation for the victims and rehabilitating offenders. Restorative justice permits for victims to have a voice in the justice process, by giving them the opportunities to ask questions and seek out answers to obtain closure and start the healing process. Restorative justice is an innovative movement within the criminal justice system. It is founded on the belief that everybody deserves to be treated with respect and decency. Some critics believe that restorative justice is an excuse to give prisoners a break. However, its function is completely opposite. I see it as an effort to offer a solution to violence. It has to do with restoring a person’s soul, focusing on the humanity of the criminal. Restorative justice is becoming more than just a belief. Early programs that were implemented have revealed convincing results. “A lot of states and nations across the world have employees within the department of corrections who have been made responsible to provide education and foster restorative justice.” (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2006, p. 1). PEACEMAKING STRATEGIES Peacemaking strategies are a holistic approach to crime and conflict that have been used for centuries in various countries. Peacemaking strategies deal with the fundamental causes of conflict and violence. The approach considers the needs of offenders, victims, communities and families within a re-integrative framework. The foundation of peacemaking is “compassion and love” (Theoretical Criminology, 2005, p. 1) “A love that not only allows us to identify ourselves with others but allows us to know that we are one with another, that we are one with each other. Such love makes a different world a world without crime.” (Theoretical Criminology, 2005, p. 1) Richard Quinney suggests that in order for there to be a “world without crime” there has to an; “interconnection between inner peace of the individual and the outer peace of the world. The two develop and occur together. The struggle is to create a humane existence, and such an existence comes only as we act peacefully toward ourselves and one another.” (Theoretical Criminology, 2005, p. 1) Peacemaking focuses on the maintenance of relationships. In order to live in a harmonious society people need to treat others with mutual respect and accept responsibility for their actions, is when justice will be accomplished. SHAMING John Braithwaite’s “reintegrative shaming” theory aims to eliminate the shaming nature of long established criminal justice process that communities and families employ in reparation for the damages done to them. The concept is established through a phrase of retrial for the offender’s actions and a process of reintergrating the offender back into society through acts of acceptance and forgiveness. The goal of shaming is to reduce the recidivism rates and get justice for the victims. Shaming also can be seen two ways in relation to sex offenders; “disintegrative shaming” and “reintegrative shaming.” (McAlinden, 2005, p. 1) Disintegrative shaming uses a retributive framework that involves, “labeling, stigmatization, ostracism, and a return to offending behavior.” (McAlinden, 2005, p. 1) This version of shaming has shown to drastically raise the recidividism rates within society ultimately defeating the purpose of restoring peace within communities. Reintegrative shaming has shown positive results in lowering that repeat offender rates. This shaming method is based on a restorative framework the focuses of reintegrating the sex offender back into society through support and treatment programs. From the victim’s standpoint, restorative justice has been more effective as an alternative to the criminal justice system. It has proven to be successful through the numerous restorative justice programs that have been implemented in the United States such as NOVA. Further, the overwhelming evidence of disrespect and unfairness in the handling of victims by the present criminal justice system suggests that restorative justice appears to be in primary position to resolve that problem. The faster the criminal justice system opens its doors to victim involvement in restorative justice, the faster society can begin to heal the victims’ damages. References Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2006). Restorative Justice: Where are we now and where are we going' (Legislative Assembly). Retrieved from Restorative Justice: www.restorativejustice.org Encyclopedia Britannica (n.d.). Retrieved from www.britannica.com/ebchecked/topic Levinson, D. (n.d.). Encyclopedia of crime and punishment. Retrieved from www.books.google.com McAlinden, A. (2005). The use of shame with sexual offenders. Oxford Journal. Retrieved from www.bjc.oxfordjournals.org Theoretical Criminology. (2005). Peacemaking criminology and Terrorism. Retrieved from www.greggbarak.com Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (2010). Feminist school of crime. In Wikipedia. Retrieved from www.en.wikipedia.org/w/index Young, D., & Stein, J. (2004, December 2004). A component of the office for victims of crime oral history project (Dept. of Justice sponsored project). Retrieved from Department of Justice: www.ojp.usdoj.gov