Crime Victims An Introduction to Victimology Sixth Edition

Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology Sixth Edition By Andrew Karmen Chapter Thirteen: Victims in the Twenty-First Century: Alternative Directions 1

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § Victim Rights Flow From – Policies from innovative CJ system officials – Case law – Laws passed by city, county and state government – Sixth Amendment vs. Seventh Amendment approach for victims – National Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA) § Alternative to 6 th Amendment revision 2

Victim Rights Categories § Zero-Sum Game Model – Rights gained at the expense of: § 1. criminals § 2. criminal justice system § 3. either offenders or officials 3

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § 1. Rights Gained at the Expense of Offenders – Theory is that victim rights should be at the expense of offenders rights – Need to shift balance of power away from offenders towards victims – See Table 13. 1, page 345 4

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § 2. Victim Rights Gained at the Expense of the Criminal Justice System Theory based on the fact that the social system is partly at fault for crime in America – State should be obligated to minimize suffering of victims – Victims should be made whole again even if offender not captured – See Table 13. 2, page 347 5

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § 3. Rights Gained at the Expense of Either Offenders, the System, or Both § Victim Participation in: – Bail Setting Arrangements – Plea Negotiations – Sentencing Hearing Decisions—Allocution – Parole Board Appearances 6

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § Issues: – Do these formal rights apply to individuals who do not fit profile of innocent victims? – No consequences for non-compliance with aforementioned victim rights – Many countries and colonial America allowed for the victims to hire their own attorney to prosecute – Processes result in “differential handling or differential access to justice” – Provide advocates for victims—ex. guardian ad litem 7

Toward Greater Formal Legal Rights Within the CJ System § Findings of policy decision impacts: – No substantial changes in outcomes resulting from implementation of victim rights – “Insiders” resist interference by outsiders (victims) – No constitutional standing for victims, which prevents them from suing for damages for the rights being ignored or violated by CJ system – Changes mere “lip service, paper promises, cosmetic changes without much substance” 8

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Vigilantism versus Legitimate Use of Force – 1. Threat posed by aggressor—imminent – 2. If Offender retreating—no longer a threat, so deadly force not justified – 3. Victim belief of harm reasonable – 4. Degree of force proportionate to threat – 5. Timing of victim’s action appropriate 9

Towards Retaliatory Justice § § § Do It Yourself Approach Back Alley Justice Curbstone Justice Street Justice Frontier Justice—Lynching § VIGILANTISM—often arises as a response to victimization 10

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Vigilantism vs. Legitimate Use of Force in Self-Defense § Four rationales shaping self defense statutes: – Punitive rationale – Rationale of necessity – Individualist rationale – Social rationale 11

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Would Victims be better off if armed? § 1990 s— 31 states passed concealed handgun laws —no felons or mentally ill – – – Potential presence deters criminals Notice of weapon abort crime from occurring Allow victim to thwart criminal intentions Could capture and hold offender for police Increase victim’s odds of survival in a life or death struggle Many believe this is why crime decreased in 90 s 12

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Table 13. 3, page 357— Justifiable Homicides by Crime Victims and Police, 1988 -2004 § Retaliation appeals to many Americans § 1990 survey showed 1/4 -1/3 approved, while 61% said NO § Criminals can be vigilantes also – Gang Shootings, Mafia Hit Men – Klux Klan and Neo Nazi claim goal is to rid society of “undesirables” 13

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Gun Control Advocates Claim: – Provides false sense of security – Homicides in homes— 77% by spouse/family – Highest risk of being shot and killed in homes is with homes of one or more handguns – 1997 study—Guns used in 17, 500 suicides (60%) versus 13, 500 homicides (67%) – Greatest threat comes from within the home – Risk outweighs the advantages 14

Towards Retaliatory Justice § Transforming victims into offenders and offenders into victims is not the solution to the crime problem. There are too many offenders already. We don’t need victims to become offenders through retaliatory violence! –Author 15

Toward Restorative Justice Peacemaking § Restorative Justice—Draws upon non-punitive methods of peacemaking, mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, conflict management and constructive engagement. Embraces themes of victim rights movement. § Retributive Justice—State centered, offender focused, punishment oriented rather than injury centered and victim focused. 16

Toward Restorative Justice Peacemaking § Peacemaking Circles—North American tribal culture developed a consensus about how to restore harmony to afflicted individuals— participation by system representatives, neighbors, community groups, religious groups § Family Group Counseling—Maori, New Zealand culture where offenders describes ordeal to relatives, friends, and neighbors and victim explains impact of crime upon him § Group determines the appropriate sanctions in both of these methodologies 17

Toward Restorative Justice Peacemaking § Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – Mediation—direct negotiations between disputants – Conciliation—go-between facilitates flow of information between disputants – Arbitration—neutral fact finder called in to break deadlocks and imposes a fair, final, and legally binding decision 18

Restorative Justice § History of resolving conflict – – – Multi-door courthouses Neighborhood justice centers Moot Model of Informal Justice § Guilt/innocence; right/wrong; Non-issues § Goal was to reconcile parties § Repair neighborhood rifts – Philadelphia and Columbus use ADR (70 s) – 1980: Congress passed Dispute Resolution Act— 2002: U. N. recommends to member countries 19

Restorative Justice § How Reconciliation Programs Work – Restitution is symbolic gesture and pre-requisite for reacceptance of community – Provides basis forgiveness – Only community can provide reintegration – Third party facilitates and oversees process Table 13. 4, page 367: Compare and Contrast Retributive and Restorative Justice 20

Restorative Justice § Pros and Cons from Victims Point of View – – – – Way to resolve without making an arrest Allows victims to ask questions about why, how, etc Speedier and cheaper form of justice Healing and redemption undermine justice and responsibility Does not protect accuser as state courts do Closed to the public Blameless victims may feel cheated if compromise involved with offender 21

Restorative Justice § Future: – More cases will be referred to this process – How will the system handle it—streamlining? – Will process be compromised if overworked? – Will this provide a framework for social change that government has not provided? – Cases involving violence do not fit – Can restorative justice programs truly rehabilitate serious offenders? 22

Key Terms Victim’s Rights Zero sum game model Allocution Guardian ad litem Differential handling Restorative justice Retaliatory justice Vigilantism, lynching Punitive rationale Rationale of necessity Individualist rationale Social rationale Peacemaking circles Family group counseling Conciliation, arbitration, mediation Multidoor courthouses Neighborhood justice centers Moot model Conflict resolution Widening the net 23