Search This Blog

Sunday, November 13, 2022

Human zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A group of Igorot displayed at a human zoo during the St. Louis World's Fair
 
An African girl fed by the outstretched hand of a white patron during 1958 Brussels World's Fair featuring 'Congo Village' with visitors watching her from behind wooden fences.

Human zoos, also known as ethnological expositions, were public displays of people, usually in a so-called "natural" or "primitive" state. They were most prominent during the 19th and 20th centuries. These displays sometimes emphasized the supposed inferiority of the exhibits' culture, and implied the superiority of "Western society", through tropes that purported marginalized groups as "savage". The idea of a "savage" derives from Columbus's voyages that deemed European culture remained pure, while other cultures were titled impure or "wild", and this stereotype relies heavily on the idea that different ways of living were "cast out by God", as other cultures do not recognize Christianity in relation to Creation. Throughout their existence such exhibitions garnered controversy over their demeaning, derogatory, and dehumanizing nature. They began as a part of circuses and "freak shows" which displayed exotic humans in a manner akin to a caricature which exaggerated their differences. They then developed into independent displays emphasizing the exhibits' inferiority to western culture and providing further justification for their subjugation. Such displays featured in multiple world's fairs and at temporary exhibitions in animal zoos.

One imperialist view of the whole non-Western world portrayed it as a vast animal park in which Whites could function as zookeepers—managers of the indigenous human and non-human inhabitants.

Animal zoos provide many controversies spanning to the modern day, as human expositions diminished in prominence in the 20th century.

Circuses and freak shows

A caricature of Saartjie Baartman, called the Hottentot Venus. Born to a Khoisan family, she was displayed in European cities in the early 19th century.
 
Poster for an anthropological exhibition in Paris, c. 1870

The notion of the human curiosity has a history at least as long as colonialism. In the Western Hemisphere, one of the earliest-known zoos, that of Moctezuma in Mexico, consisted not only of a vast collection of animals, but also exhibited humans, for example, dwarves, albinos and hunchbacks.

During the Renaissance, the Medici developed a large menagerie in the Vatican. In the 16th century, Cardinal Hippolytus Medici had a collection of people of different races as well as exotic animals. He is reported as having a troupe of so-called Savages, speaking over twenty languages; there were also Moors, Tartars, Indians, Turks and Africans. In 1691, Englishman William Dampier exhibited a tattooed native of Miangas whom he bought when he was in Mindanao. He also intended to exhibit the man's mother to earn more profit, but the mother died at sea. The man was named Jeoly, falsely branded as "Prince Giolo" to attract more audience, and was exhibited for three months straight until he died of smallpox in London.

Ad for a Carl Hagenbeck show (1886)

One of the first modern public human exhibitions was P.T. Barnum's exhibition of Joice Heth on 25 February 1835 and, subsequently, the Siamese twins Chang and Eng Bunker. These exhibitions were common in freak shows. Another famous example was that of Saartjie Baartman of the Namaqua, often referred to as the Hottentot Venus, who was displayed in London and France until her death in 1815.

During the 1850s, Maximo and Bartola, two microcephalic children from El Salvador, were exhibited in the US and Europe under the names Aztec Children and Aztec Lilliputians. However, human zoos would become common only in the 1870s in the midst of the New Imperialism period.

Start of human exhibits

In the 1870s, exhibitions of so-called "exotic populations" became popular throughout the western world. Human zoos could be seen in many of Europe's largest cities, such as Paris, Hamburg, London, Milan as well as American cities such as New York City and Chicago. Carl Hagenbeck, an animal trader, was one of the early proponents of this trend, when in 1874, at the suggestion of Heinrich Leutemann, he decided to exhibit Sami people with the 'Laplander Exhibition'. What differentiated Hagenbeck's exhibit from others, was the fact that he showed these people, with animals and plants, to "re-create", their "natural environment." He sold people the feeling of having travelled to these areas by witnessing his exhibits. These exhibits were a massive success, and only became larger and more elaborate. From this point forward human exhibitions would lean towards stereotyping, and projecting western superiority. Greater feeding into the Imperialist narrative, that these people's culture merited subjugation. It also promoted scientific racism, where they were classified as more or less 'civilized' on a scale, from great apes to western Europeans.

Hagenbeck would go on to launch a Nubian Exhibit in 1876, and an Inuit exhibit in 1880. These were also massively successful.

Aside from Hagenbeck, the Jardin d'Acclimatation was also a hotspot of ethnological exhibits. Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, director of the Jardin d'Acclimatation, decided in 1877 to organize two ethnological exhibits that also presented Nubians and Inuit. That year, the audience of the Jardin d'acclimatation' doubled to one million. Between 1877 and 1912, approximately thirty ethnological exhibitions were presented at the Jardin zoologique d'acclimatation.

These displays were so successful they were incorporated into both the 1878 and the 1889 Parisian World's Fair, which presented a 'Negro Village'. Visited by 28 million people, the 1889 World's Fair displayed 400 indigenous people as the major attraction.

In Amsterdam the International Colonial and Export Exhibition had a display of people native to Suriname, in 1883.

Ad for an 1893/1894 ethnological exposition of Sámi in Hamburg-Saint Paul

In 1886, the Spanish displayed natives of the Philippines in an exhibition, as people whom they "civilized". This event added flame to the 1896 Philippine revolution. Queen Consort of Spain, Maria Cristina of Austria, afterwards institutionalized the business of human zoos. By 1887, indigenous Igorot people & animals were sent to Madrid and were exhibited in a human zoo at the newly constructed Palacio de Cristal del Retiro.

At both the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition and the 1901 Pan-American Exposition Little Egypt a bellydancer, was photographed as a catalogued "type" by Charles Dudley Arnold and Harlow Higginbotha.

At the 1895 African Exhibition in The Crystal Palace, around eighty people from Somalia were displayed in an "exotic" setting.

German ethnographs

Ethnology studies in Germany took a new approach in the 1870s as human displays were incorporated into zoos. These exhibits were lauded as 'educational' to the general population by the scientific community. Very quickly, the exhibits were used as a way to show that Europeans had "evolved" into a 'superior', 'cosmopolitan' life.

In the late 19th century, German ethnographic museums were seen as an empirical study of human culture. They contained artifacts from cultures around the world organized by continent allowing visitors to see the similarities and differences between the groups and "form their own ideas".

Objectification in human zoos

Within the history of human zoos, there are patterns of overt sexual representation of displayed peoples, most frequently women. These objectifications often lead to treatment that reflect a lack of privacy and respect, including the dissection and display of bodies after death without consent.

An example of the sexualization of ethnically diverse women in Europe is Saartje Baartman, often referred to as her anglicized name Sarah Bartmann. Bartmann was displayed both when she was alive throughout England and Ireland and after her death in The Musée de l'Homme. While alive, she participated in a traveling show depicting her as a "savage female" with a large focus on her body. The clothes she was put in were tight and close to her skin color, and spectators were encouraged to "see for themselves" if Bartmann's body, particularly her buttocks, were real through "poking and pushing". Her living display was financially compensated but there is no record of her consenting to be examined and displayed after death.

Dominika Czarnecka theorizes of the relationship between the radicalization and sexualization of black female bodies in her journal article, "Black Female Bodies and the 'White' View." Czarnecka focuses on ethnographic shows that were prominent in Polish territory in the late 19th century. She argues that an essential part of why these shows were so popular is the display of the black female body. Although the women in the shows were meant to be depicting Amazon warriors, their wardrobe was not similar to amazonian dress, and there are several documentations of comments from spectators about their revealing clothes and their bodies.

Although women were most frequently objectified, there are a few instances of "exotic" men being displayed due to their favorable appearance. Angelo Solimann was brought to Italy as a slave from Central Africa in the 18th century, but ended up gaining a reputation in Viennese society for his fighting skills and vast knowledge about language and history. Upon his death in 1796, this positive association did not prevent his body being "stuffed and exhibited in the Viennese Natural History Museum" for almost a decade.

Around the turn of the century

In 1896, to increase the number of visitors, the Cincinnati Zoo invited one hundred Sioux Native Americans to establish a village at the site. The Sioux lived at the zoo for three months.

The 1900 World's Fair presented the famous diorama living in Madagascar, while the Colonial exhibitions in Marseilles (1906 and 1922) and in Paris (1907 and 1931) also displayed humans in cages, often nude or semi-nude. The 1931 exhibition in Paris was so successful that 34 million people attended it in six months, while a smaller counter-exhibition entitled The Truth on the Colonies, organized by the Communist Party, attracted very few visitors—in the first room, it recalled Albert Londres and André Gide's critiques of forced labour in the colonies. Nomadic Senegalese Villages were also presented.

In 1906, Madison Grant—socialite, eugenicist, amateur anthropologist, and head of the New York Zoological Society—had Congolese pygmy Ota Benga put on display at the Bronx Zoo in New York City alongside apes and other animals. At the behest of Grant, the zoo director William Hornaday placed Benga displayed in a cage with the chimpanzees, then with an orangutan named Dohong, and a parrot, and labeled him The Missing Link, suggesting that in evolutionary terms Africans like Benga were closer to apes than were Europeans. It triggered protests from the city's clergymen, but the public reportedly flocked to see it.

Ota Benga, a human exhibit, in 1906. Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches (150 cm). Weight, 103 pounds (47 kg). Brought from the Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Central Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Exhibited each afternoon during September. – according to a sign outside the primate house at the Bronx Zoo, September 1906.

On Monday, 8 September 1906, after just two days, Hornaday decided to close the exhibition, and Benga could be found walking the zoo grounds, often followed by a crowd "howling, jeering and yelling."

First organized backlash

According to The New York Times, although "few expressed audible objection to the sight of a human being in a cage with monkeys as companions", controversy erupted as black clergymen in the city took great offense. "Our race, we think, is depressed enough, without exhibiting one of us with the apes", said the Reverend James H. Gordon, superintendent of the Howard Colored Orphan Asylum in Brooklyn. "We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls."

New York City Mayor George B. McClellan Jr. refused to meet with the clergymen, drawing the praise of Hornaday, who wrote to him: "When the history of the Zoological Park is written, this incident will form its most amusing passage."

As the controversy continued, Hornaday remained unapologetic, insisting that his only intention was to put on an ethnological exhibition. In another letter, he said that he and Grant—who ten years later would publish the racist tract The Passing of the Great Race—considered it "imperative that the society should not even seem to be dictated to" by the black clergymen.

1903 saw one of the first widespread protests against human zoos, at the "Human Pavilion" of an exposition in Osaka, Japan. The exhibition of Koreans and Okinawans in "primitive" housing incurred protests from the governments of Korea and Okinawa, and a Formosan woman wearing Chinese dress angered a group of Chinese students studying abroad in Tokyo. An Ainu schoolteacher was made to exhibit himself in the zoo to raise money for his schoolhouse, as the Japanese government refused to pay. The fact that the schoolteacher made eloquent speeches and fundraised for his school while wearing traditional dress confused the spectators. An anonymous front-page column in a Japanese magazine condemned these examples and the "Human Pavilion" in total, calling it inhumane to exhibit people as spectacles.

St. Louis World's Fair

In 1904, over 1,100 Filipinos were displayed at the St. Louis World's Fair in association with the 1904 Summer Olympics. Following the Spanish-American War, the United States had just acquired new territories such as Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. William H. Taft was the civil governor of the Philippines at the time and allowed the U.S. to put together a Philippines exhibition in an attempt to "showcase the new colony." Filipinos were put into villages, known generally by fair attendees as the "Igorrote Village," despite the variety of ethnic groups represented. While the exhibit was promoted as a display of U.S. power and growth, it is believed that to achieve this perspective, the Filipinos themselves were construed as "racially inferior and incapable of national self-determination in the near future." This was done by encouraging the performance of tribal customs that were seen as bizarre and 'savage' by Americans, such as eating dog. The villages also took part in western-influenced demonstrations, such as attending model school and participating in police drill teams.

One of the activities the indigenous people held in the zoo had to participate in were the "Special Olympics." This was an activity decided by the organizers of the zoos at the 1904 world's fair. The people that were kept in the zoos were a symbol for the U.S. latest victory, keeping groups of people in the zoo to look at and showcase their newest territories. Igorot, Negrito, Visayan, and Moro were the four tribes that were brought over from the Philippines to show the diversity of the Filipino people. When originally transported to St. Louis people put in the zoos were originally only given rations of rice, some hardtack, and canned goods. A lot of the Filipinos who arrived came coughing and ill from their travels on the train to St. Louis. They were given temporary live quarters while their traditional huts were being built in the zoo for them to live in during the fair. While being a part of the fair the members of the tribes that were brought to the zoo were made to showcase their unique traditions during the fair to entertain. There was also a school made for the children in these tribes, where visitors could observe from an elevated balcony and view the children learning.

France and Great Britain

Between 1 May and 31 October 1908 the Scottish National Exhibition, opened by one of Queen Victoria's grandsons, Prince Arthur of Connaught, was held in Saughton Park, Edinburgh. One of the attractions was the Senegal Village with its French-speaking Senegalese residents, on show demonstrating their way of life, art and craft while living in beehive huts.

In 1909, the infrastructure of the 1908 Scottish National Exhibition in Edinburgh was used to construct the new Marine Gardens to the coast near Edinburgh at Portobello. A group of Somali men, women and children were shipped over to be part of the exhibition, living in thatched huts.

Grand Colonial Exhibition (Meiji Memorial Takushoku Expo) at Tennoji Park, Osaka in 1913 (明治記念拓殖博覧会(台湾土人ノ住宅及其風俗))

In 1925, a display at Belle Vue Zoo in Manchester, England, was entitled "Cannibals" and featured black Africans in supposedly native dress.

In 1931, around 100 other New Caledonian Kanaks, were put on display at the Jardin d'Acclimatation in Paris.

United States (1930s)

By the 1930s, a new kind of human zoo appeared in America, nude shows masquerading as education. These included the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony at the Pacific International Exposition in San Diego, California (1935–36) and the Sally Rand Nude Ranch at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (1939). The former was supposedly a real nudist colony, which used hired performers instead of actual nudists. The latter featured nude women performing in western attire. The Golden Gate fair also featured a "Greenwich Village" show, described in the Official Guide Book as "Model artists' colony and revue theatre."

Ethnological expositions during Nazi Germany

As ethnogenic expositions were discontinued in Germany around 1931, there were many repercussions for the performers. Many of the people brought from their homelands to work in the exhibits had created families in Germany, and there were many children that had been born in Germany. Once they no longer worked in the zoos or for performance acts, these people were stuck living in Germany where they had no rights and were harshly discriminated against. During the rise of the Nazi party, the foreign actors in these stage shows were typically able to stay out of concentration camps because there were so few of them that the Nazis did not see them as a real threat. Although they were able to avoid concentration camps, they were not able to participate in German life as citizens of ethnically German origin could. The Hitler Youth did not allow children of foreign parents to participate, and adults were rejected as German soldiers. Many ended up working in war industry factories or foreign laborer camps. After World War II ended, racism in Germany became more concealed or invisible, but it did not go away. Many people of foreign descent intended to leave after the war, but because of their German nationality, it was difficult for them to emigrate.

Modern exhibitions

A modern art project replica of the 1914 Congo village exhibition in Oslo (2014)

As part of the Portuguese World Exhibition in 1940, members of a tribe from the Bissagos Islands of Guinea-Bissau were displayed on an island in a lake in the Lisbon Tropical Botanical Garden.

A Congolese village was displayed at the Brussels 1958 World's Fair.

In April 1994, an example of an Ivory Coast village was presented as part of an African safari in Port-Saint-Père, near Nantes, in France, later called Planète Sauvage.

In July 2005, the Augsburg Zoo in Germany hosted an "African village" featuring African crafts and African cultural performances. The event was subject to widespread criticism. Defenders of the event argued that it was not racist since it did not involve exhibiting Africans in a debasing way, as had been done at zoos in the past. Critics argued that presenting African culture in the context of a zoo contributed to exoticizing and stereotyping Africans, thus laying the ground work for racial discrimination.

In August 2005, London Zoo displayed four human volunteers wearing fig leaves (and bathing suits) for four days.

In 2007, Adelaide Zoo ran a Human Zoo exhibition which consisted of a group of people who, as part of a study exercise, had applied to be housed in the former ape enclosure by day, but then returned home by night. The inhabitants took part in several exercises, and spectators were asked for donations towards a new ape enclosure.

Also in 2007, pygmy performers at the Festival of Pan-African Music (Fespam) were housed at a zoo in Brazzaville, Congo. Although members of the group of 20 people—among them an infant, age three months—were not officially on display, it was necessary for them to "collect firewood in the zoo to cook their food, and [they] were being stared at and filmed by tourists and passers-by".

In 2012, a video surfaced showing a safari trip to the Bay of Bengal. The safari trip included showcasing the Jarawa tribe of the Andaman Islands in their own home. This indigenous tribe had not had much contact with outsiders, and some were asked to perform dances for the tourists. At the beginning of the safari trip there were signs stating not to "feed" the tribespeople, but tourists still brought food to give to the tribespeople. In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court banned these safari trips.

In August 2014, as part of the Edinburgh International Festival, South African theatre-maker Brett Bailey's show Exhibit B was performed in the Playfair Library Hall, University of Edinburgh; then in September at The Barbican in London. This explored the nature of Human Zoos and raised much controversy both amongst the performers and the audiences.

With a view to tackling the morality of Human Zoo exhibits, 2018 saw the poster exhibition, Putting People on Display, tour Glasgow School of Art, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Stirling, the University of St Andrews and the University of Aberdeen. Additional posters were added to a selection from the French ACHAC's exhibition, Human Zoos: the Invention of the Savage, in relation to the Scottish dimension in hosting such shows.

Human safari

The threatening, exploitative and degrading practice of "human safari" tourism has been a prevalent problem particularly for indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, such as the Sentinelese.

Victimisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Victimisation (or victimization) is the process of being victimised or becoming a victim. The field that studies the process, rates, incidence, effects, and prevalence of victimisation is called victimology.

Peer victimisation

Peer victimisation is the experience among children of being a target of the aggressive behaviour of other children, who are not siblings and not necessarily age-mates.

Secondary victimisation

Secondary victimization (also known as post crime victimization or double victimization) refers to further victim-blaming from criminal justice authorities following a report of an original victimization.

Revictimisation

The term revictimisation refers to a pattern wherein the victim of abuse and/or crime has a statistically higher tendency to be victimised again, either shortly thereafter or much later in adulthood in the case of abuse as a child. This latter pattern is particularly notable in cases of sexual abuse. While an exact percentage is almost impossible to obtain, samples from many studies suggest the rate of revictimisation for people with histories of sexual abuse is very high. The vulnerability to victimisation experienced as an adult is also not limited to sexual assault, and may include physical abuse as well.

Reasons as to why revictimisation occurs vary by event type, and some mechanisms are unknown. Revictimisation in the short term is often the result of risk factors that were already present, which were not changed or mitigated after the first victimisation; sometimes the victim cannot control these factors. Examples of these risk factors include living or working in dangerous areas, chaotic familial relations, having an aggressive temperament, drug or alcohol usage and unemployment. Revictimisation may be "facilitated, tolerated, and even produced by particular institutional contexts, illustrating how the risk of revictimization is not a characteristic of the individual, nor is it destiny."

Revictimisation of adults who were previously sexually abused as children is more complex. Multiple theories exist as to how this functions. Some scientists propose a maladaptive form of learning; the initial abuse teaches inappropriate beliefs and behaviours that persist into adulthood. The victim believes that abusive behaviour is "normal" and comes to expect, or feel they deserve it from others in the context of relationships, and thus may unconsciously seek out abusive partners or cling to abusive relationships. Another theory draws on the principle of learned helplessness. As children, they are put in situations that they have little to no hope of escaping, especially when the abuse comes from a caregiver. One theory goes that this state of being unable to fight back or flee the danger leaves the last primitive option: freeze, an offshoot of death-feigning.

Revictimization has also been characterized as a phenomenon whereby the children depicted in child pornography have a feeling of the depicted event reoccurring every single time the image is viewed. Each time the image is viewed, the children relive the experience as if it were happening all over again. As the images are viewed over and over again, this leaves the children feeling, or being as if they were, raped all over again, over and over again.

Offenders choosing pre-traumatized victims

In adulthood, the freeze response can remain, and some professionals have noted that victimisers sometimes seem to pick up subtle clues of this when choosing a victim. This behaviour can make the victim an easier target, as they sometimes make less effort to fight back or vocalise. Afterwards, they often make excuses and minimise what happened to them, sometimes never reporting the assault to the authorities.

Self-victimisation

Self-victimisation (or victim playing) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons, such as to justify real or perceived abuse of others, to manipulate others, as a coping strategy, or for attention seeking. In a political context, self-victimisation could also be seen as an important political tool within post-conflict, nation-building societies. While failing to produce any affirmative values, the fetishistic lack of future is masked up by an excess of confirmation of its own status of victimhood, as noted by the Bosnian political theoretician Jasmin Hasanović, seeing it in the post-Yugoslav context as a form of auto-colonialism, where reproducing the narrative of victimhood corresponds with the balkanization stereotypes, being the very narrative of the colonizer where the permanence of war is the contemporaneity of fear, affirming the theses on eternal hatred thus strengthening ethnonationalism even more.

Self-image of victimisation (victim mentality)

Victims of abuse and manipulation sometimes get trapped into a self-image of victimisation. The psychological profile of victimisation includes a pervasive sense of helplessness, passivity, loss of control, pessimism, negative thinking, strong feelings of guilt, shame, self-blame and depression. This way of thinking can lead to hopelessness and despair.

Victimisation in Kazakhstan

At the end of 2012, a first-ever victimisation survey of 219,500 households (356,000 respondents) was conducted by the State Statistics Agency at the request of Marat Tazhin, the head of the Security Council and a sociologist by training. According to the survey, 3.5% of respondents reported being a victim of crime in the previous 12 months, and only half of those said that they had reported the crime to the police. The presidential administration chose not to release any further details from this survey to the public.

In May–June 2018, the first International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) of nationally representative sample of 4,000 persons was conducted in Kazakhstan. It showed low levels of victimisation. The overall violent crime victimization rate among the population in a one-year period was 3.7%. Rates of violent victimization by strangers were somewhat higher among females (2.1%) than among males (1.8%). The rates of violence by persons known to them were as much as three times higher for women than for men (2.8% for females and 0.8% for males). In a one-year period, the highest rates of victimisation were consumer fraud (13.5% of respondents), theft from the car and personal theft (6.3% of respondents), and official bribe-seeking (5.2% of respondents). In almost half of bribe-seeking cases the bribe-seeker was a police officer. Taking only the adult population of Kazakhstan into account, the ICVS police bribery figures suggest around 400,000 incidents of police bribery every year in Kazakhstan. These calculations are most likely very conservative in that they only capture when a bribe has been solicited and exclude instances of citizen-initiated bribery. The ICVS revealed extremely low levels of reporting crime to the police. Only one in five crimes were reported to the police in Kazakhstan, down from the 46% reporting rate recorded in the government-conducted 2012 survey.

Rates of victimisation in United States

Levels of criminal activity are measured through three major data sources: the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), self-report surveys of criminal offenders, and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). However, the UCR and self-report surveys generally report details regarding the offender and the criminal offense; information on the victim is only included so far as his/her relationship to the offender, and perhaps a superficial overview of his/her injuries. The NCVS is a tool used to measure the existence of actual, rather than only those reported, crimes—the victimisation rate—by asking individuals about incidents in which they may have been victimised. The National Crime Victimization Survey is the United States' primary source of information on crime victimisation.

Each year, data is obtained from a nationally represented sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimisation in the United States. This survey enables the (government) to estimate the likelihood of victimisation by rape (more valid estimates were calculated after the surveys redesign in 1992 that better tapped instances of sexual assault, particularly of date rape), robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the NCVS reveals that, from 1994 to 2005, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest levels ever recorded. Property crimes continue to decline.

In 2010, the National Institute of Justice reported that American adolescents were the age group most likely to be victims of violent crime, while American men were more likely than American women to be victims of violent crime, and blacks were more likely than Americans of other races to be victims of violent crime.

Victimology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Monument to Those Who Saved the World is a monument in Chernobyl, Ukraine, to the firefighters and liquidators who died stopping the fire at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 after the catastrophic nuclear accident there and from the clean-up efforts that took place to limit the spread of nuclear contamination.
Monument to Those Who Saved the World is a monument in Chernobyl, Ukraine, to the firefighters and liquidators victims who died stopping the fire at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 after the catastrophic nuclear accident there and from the clean-up efforts that took place to limit the spread of nuclear contamination.
 

Victimology is the study of victimization, including the psychological effects on victims, the relationship between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system—that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials—and the connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements.

Victim of a crime

In criminology and criminal law, a victim of a crime is an identifiable person who has been harmed individually and directly by the perpetrator, rather than by society as a whole. However, this may not always be the case, as with victims of white collar crime, who may not be clearly identifiable or directly linked to crime against a particular individual. Victims of white collar crime are often denied their status as victims by the social construction of the concept (Croall, 2001). The concept also remains a controversial topic within women's studies.

The Supreme Court of the United States first recognized the rights of crime victims to make a victim impact statement during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial in the case of Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

A victim impact panel, which usually follows the victim impact statement, is a form of community-based or restorative justice in which the crime victims (or relatives and friends of deceased crime victims) meet with the defendant after conviction to tell the convict about how the criminal activity affected them, in the hope of rehabilitation or deterrence.

Consequences of crimes

Emotional distress as the result of crime is a recurring theme for all victims of crime. The most common problems, affecting three quarters of victims, were psychological problems, including: fear, anxiety, nervousness, self-blame, anger, shame, and difficulty sleeping. These problems often result in the development of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Post crime distress is also linked to pre-existing emotional problems and sociodemographic variables. This has been known to become a leading case of the elderly to be more adversely affected.(Ferraro, 1995)

Victims may experience the following psychological reactions:

  • Increase in the realization of personal vulnerability.
  • The perception of the world as meaningless and incomprehensible.
  • The view of themselves in a negative light.

The experience of victimization may result in increasing fear on the part of the victim, and the spread of fear in the community.

Victim proneness

Environmental theory

The environmental theory posits that the location and context of the crime bring the victim of the crime and its perpetrator together.

Studies in the early 2010s showed that crimes are negatively correlated to trees in urban environments; more trees in an area are congruent with lower victimization rates or violent crime rates. This relationship was established by studies in 2010 in Portland, Oregon and in 2012 in Baltimore, Maryland. Geoffrey Donovan of the United States Forest Service (USFS), one of the researchers, said, "trees, which provide a range of other benefits, could improve quality of life in Portland by reducing crime..." because "We believe that large street trees can reduce crime by signaling to a potential criminal that a neighborhood is better cared for and, therefore, a criminal is more likely to be caught." Note that the presence of large street trees especially indicated a reduction in crime, as opposed to newer, smaller trees. In the 2012 Baltimore study, led by scientists from the University of Vermont and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a "conservative spatially adjusted model indicated that a 10% increase in tree canopy was associated with a roughly 12% decrease in crime.... [and] we found that the inverse relationship continued in both contexts, but the magnitude was 40% greater for public than for private lands."

Quantification of victim-proneness

There have been some studies recently to quantify the real existence of victim-proneness. Contrary to the popular belief that more women are repeat victims, and thus more victim-prone than men, actually men in their prime (24- to 34-year-old males) are more likely to be victims of repeated crimes.

In the case of juvenile offenders, the study results also show that people are more likely to be victimized as a result of a serious offense by someone they know; the most frequent crimes committed by adolescents towards someone they know were sexual assault, common assault, and homicide. Adolescents victimizing people they did not know generally committed common assault, forcible confinement, and armed or unarmed robbery.

Sex workers are, anecdotally, thought to have an abnormally high incidence of violent crime committed against them, and such crimes go frequently unresolved, but there are few victimological studies of the matter.

Fundamental attribution error

In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The term was coined by Lee Ross some years after a now-classic experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris (1967).

The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias. As a simple example, if Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (dispositional). If Alice later tripped over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of the rock (situational). Victim proneness or victim blaming can be a form of fundamental attribution error, and more specifically, the just-world phenomenon(Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2016, p. 107).

The Just-world phenomenon is the belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, which was first theorized by Melvin Lerner (1977). Attributing failures to dispositional causes rather than situational causes, which are unchangeable and uncontrollable, satisfies our need to believe that the world is fair and we have control over our life. We are motivated to see a just world because this reduces our perceived threats, gives us a sense of security, helps us find meaning in difficult and unsettling circumstances, and benefits us psychologically. Unfortunately, the just-world hypothesis also results in a tendency for people to blame and disparage victims of a tragedy or an accident, such as victims of rape and domestic abuse to reassure themselves of their insusceptibility to such events. People may even blame the victim's faults in "past lives" to pursue justification for their bad outcome.

Victim facilitation

Victim facilitation, another controversial sub-topic, but a more accepted theory than victim proneness, finds its roots in the writings of criminologists such as Marvin Wolfgang. The choice to use victim facilitation as opposed to "victim proneness" or some other term is that victim facilitation is not blaming the victim, but rather the interactions of the victim that make them vulnerable to a crime.

The theory of victim facilitation calls for study of the external elements that make a victim more accessible or vulnerable to an attack. In an article that summarizes the major movements in victimology internationally, Schneider expresses victim facilitation as a model that ultimately describes only the misinterpretation by the offender of victim behavior. It is based upon the theory of a symbolic interaction and does not alleviate the offender of their exclusive responsibility.

In Eric Hickey's Serial Murderers and their Victims, a major analysis of 329 serial killers in America is conducted. As part of Hickey's analysis, he categorized victims as high, low, or mixed regarding the victim's facilitation of the murder. Categorization was based upon lifestyle risk (example, amount of time spent interacting with strangers), type of employment, and their location at the time of the killing (example, bar, home or place of business). Hickey found that 13–15% of victims had high facilitation, 60–64% of victims had low facilitation and 23–25% of victims had a combination of high and low facilitation. Hickey also noted that among serial killer victims after 1975, one in five victims were at greater risk from hitchhiking, working as a prostitute, or involving themselves in situations in which they often came into contact with strangers.

There is importance in studying and understanding victim facilitation as well as continuing to research it as a sub-topic of victimization. For instance, a study of victim facilitation increases public awareness, leads to more research on victim-offender relationship, and advances theoretical etiologies of violent crime. One of the ultimate purposes of this type of knowledge is to inform the public and increase awareness so fewer people become victims. Another goal of studying victim facilitation, as stated by Maurice Godwin, is to aid in investigations. Godwin discusses the theory of victim social networks as a concept in which one looks at the areas of highest risk for victimization from a serial killer. This can be connected to victim facilitation because the victim social networks are the locations in which the victim is most vulnerable to the serial killer. Using this process, investigators can create a profile of places where the serial killer and victim both frequent.

Victimization rate in United States

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a tool to measure the existence of actual, rather than reported, crimes—the victimization rate. The National Crime Victimization Survey is the United States' "primary source of information on crime victimization. Each year, data is obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. This survey enables the (government) to estimate the likelihood of victimization for rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups." According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the NCVS reveals that, from 1994 to 2005, violent crime rates declined, reaching the lowest levels ever recorded. Property crimes continue to decline.

Serial killings are waning in particular, and according to a 2020 ABA Journal report, it's in large part because "people are less vulnerable than in the past." This in turn is due to several societal changes, according to experts and a news reports cited by the ABA Journal: (1) “People don't hitchhike anymore;" (2) “They have means of reaching out in an emergency situation using cellphones;" (3) "There are cameras everywhere;” (4) "parents today are less likely to allow [children] to leave home unsupervised;" (5) "interventions that help troubled children might reform potential killers" (for example, social work, school nurses, and child psychology); (6) "easy access to pornography is providing an outlet that satiates ... sexual impulses"; and (7) "would-be serial killers are turning instead to mass shootings." Other reports show some evidence that serial killings are (8) deterred generally by "longer prison sentences" and (9) deterred specifically by "a reduction in parole."

Victimization in Canada

In Canada the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) is an independent resource for victims of crime. It was created in 2007 to ensure the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims of crime. The ombudsman provides information to victims about their rights under Canadian federal law, the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. The ombudsman also works to ensure that policy makers and other criminal justice personnel are aware of victims' needs and concerns and to identify important issues and trends that may negatively impact victims. Where appropriate, the Ombudsman may also make recommendations to the federal government.

International Crime Victims Survey

Many countries have such victimization surveys. They give a much better account for the volume crimes but are less accurate for crimes that occur with a (relative) low frequency such as homicide, or victimless 'crimes' such as drug (ab)use. Attempts to use the data from these national surveys for international comparison have failed. Differences in definitions of crime and other methodological differences are too big for proper comparison.

A dedicated survey for international comparison: A group of European criminologists started an international victimization study with the sole purpose to generate international comparative crime and victimization data. The project is now known as the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS). After the first round in 1989, the surveys were repeated in 1992, 1996, and 2000 and 2004/2005.

Society as crime victim

One train of thought supposes society itself is the victim of many crimes, especially such felonies as murder, homicide and manslaughter. Many lawyers, judges, and academics have espoused this sentiment.

Penal couple

The penal couple is defined as the relationship between perpetrator and victim of a crime. That is, both are involved in the event. A sociologist invented the term in 1963. The term is now accepted by many sociologists. The concept is, essentially, that "when a crime takes place, it has two partners, one the offender and second the victim, who is providing opportunity to the criminal in committing the crime." The victim, in this view, is "a participant in the penal couple and should bear some 'functional responsibility' for the crime." The very idea is rejected by some other victimologists as blaming the victim.

Rights of victims

Anna Costanza Baldry (left), senior researcher at the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT), watches as participants conduct role-play scenarios during domestic and gender-based violence training at the Central Training Center. Afghan National Police (ANP)

In 1985, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Also, the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT) and the World Society of Victimology developed a UN Convention for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.

The term victimology, in fact, denotes to the subject, which studies about the harm(s) caused to victims in commission of crime and the relative scope for compensation to the victim as a means of redressal. In criminal jurisprudence, mere punishiment of an offender is not considered sufficient in redressing the grievance of victim; there is need to compensate the loss or harms suffered by the victim. In Criminal Procedure Code, though provisions have been made in Section 357 to provide compensation to victims, who have suffered loss or harms in consequence to commission of offence. But, what has been provided in Indian Law, as a compensatory measure to victims of crimes, is not enough and this aspect needs to be reviewed by the legislature to frame or enact necessary law, so as to sufficiently compensate to victims of crimes and to provide safeguards to victims of crimes, besides compensating him in monetary terms. [S.P. Sharma, Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, December, 2010].

Restorative justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restorative justice is an approach to justice where one of the responses to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community. The goal is for them to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm.

A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, its goal is to give them an active role in the process and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness. Restorative justice is founded on an alternative theory to the traditional methods of justice, which often focus on retribution. However, restorative justice programs can complement traditional methods, and it has been argued that some cases of restorative justice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is.

Academic assessment of restorative justice is positive. Most studies suggest it makes offenders less likely to reoffend. A 2007 study also found that it had a higher rate of victim satisfaction and offender accountability than traditional methods of justice delivery. Its use has seen worldwide growth since the 1990s. Restorative justice inspired and is part of the wider study of restorative practices.

Definition

According to John Braithwaite, restorative justice is:

...a process where all stakeholders affected by an injustice have an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the injustice and to decide what should be done to repair the harm. With crime, restorative justice is about the idea that because crime hurts, justice should heal. It follows that conversations with those who have been hurt and with those who have inflicted the harm must be central to the process.

Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. The process of restorative justice thus shifts the responsibility for addressing crime.

In 2014, Carolyn Boyes-Watson from Suffolk University defined restorative justice as:

...a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all.

Difference from other approaches

According to Howard Zehr, restorative justice differs from traditional criminal justice in terms of the guiding questions it asks. In restorative justice, the questions are:

  1. Who has been hurt?
  2. What are their needs?
  3. Whose obligations are these?
  4. What are the causes?
  5. Who has a stake in the situation?
  6. What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right?

In contrast, traditional criminal justice asks:

  1. What laws have been broken?
  2. Who did it?
  3. What do the offender(s) deserve?

Others, however, have argued that there are several similarities between restorative justice and traditional criminal justice and that some cases of restorative justice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is.

Restorative justice is also different from the adversarial legal process or that of civil litigation.

As Braithwaite writes, "Court-annexed ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and restorative justice could not be philosophically further apart." While the former seeks to address only legally relevant issues and to protect both parties' rights, restorative justice aims at "expanding the issues beyond those that are legally relevant, especially into underlying relationships."

History

History of the term

The phrase "restorative justice" has appeared in written sources since the first half of the nineteenth century. The modern usage of the term was introduced by Albert Eglash, who in 1977 described three different approaches to justice:

  1. "retributive justice", based on punishment;
  2. "distributive justice", involving therapeutic treatment of offenders;
  3. "restorative justice", based on restitution with input from victims and offenders.

Precursors in indigenous groups

According to Howard Zehr, "Two people have made very specific and profound contributions to practices in the field – the First Nations people of Canada and the U.S., and the Maori of New Zealand... [I]n many ways, restorative justice represents a validation of values and practices that were characteristic of many indigenous groups," whose traditions were "often discounted and repressed by western colonial powers". For example, in New Zealand, prior to European contact, the Maori had a well-developed system called Utu that protected individuals, social stability, and the integrity of the group. Restorative justice (sometimes known in these contexts as circle justice) continues to be a feature of indigenous justice systems today.

Development of theory

Howard Zehr's book Changing Lenses–A New Focus for Crime and Justice, first published in 1990, is credited with being "groundbreaking", as well as being one of the first to articulate a theory of restorative justice. The title of this book refers to providing an alternative framework for thinking about – or new lens for viewing – crime and justice. Changing Lenses juxtaposed a "retributive justice" framework, where crime is viewed as an offense against the state, with a restorative justice framework, where crime is viewed as a violation of people and relationships. The book made reference to the positive results of efforts in the late 1970s and 1980s at victim–offender mediation, pioneered in the United States by Howard Zehr, Ron Claassen and Mark Umbreit.

By the second half of the 1990s, the expression "restorative justice" had become popular, evolving to widespread usage by 2006. The restorative justice movement has attracted many segments of society, including "police officers, judges, schoolteachers, politicians, juvenile justice agencies, victim support groups, aboriginal elders, and mums and dads".

"Restorative justice is a fast-growing state, national, and international social movement that seeks to bring together people to address the harm caused by crime," write Mark Umbreit and Marilyn Peterson Armour. "Restorative justice views violence, community decline, and fear-based responses as indicators of broken relationships. It offers a different response, namely the use of restorative solutions to repair the harm related to conflict, crime, and victimization."

Development of practice

In North America, the growth of restorative justice has been facilitated by NGOs dedicated to this approach to justice, such as the Victim Offender Mediation Association, as well as by the establishment of academic centers, such as the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia, the University of Minnesota's Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking, the Community Justice Institute at Florida Atlantic University, the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies at Fresno Pacific University in California, the Center for Restorative Justice at the University of San Diego, and the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Members of the Mennonites and the social-action arm of their church-community, Mennonite Central Committee, were among the early proponents. "[T]he antinomian groups advocating and supporting restorative justice, such as the Mennonites (as well as Amish and Quaker groups), subscribe to principled pacifism and also tend to believe that restorative justice is much more humane than the punitive juvenile and criminal justice systems."

The development of restorative justice in continental Europe, especially the German speaking countries, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, is somewhat different from the Anglo-Saxon experience. For example, victim–offender mediation is just one model of restorative justice, but in the present European context it is the most important one. Restorative justice is not just a theory, but a practice-oriented attitude in dealing (not only) with criminal relevant conflicts. Restorative justice may be moving towards restorative practice.

In October 2018, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation to member states which recognised "the potential benefits of using restorative justice with respect to criminal justice systems" and encouraged member states to "develop and use restorative justice".

Internationally, 125 nations collectively endeavored to contribute to the Prison Fellowship International set up by Charles Colson in 1979, which is aimed to help the current and former insiders and their family members beyond America. The Center for Justice & Reconciliation was initiated for information dissemination and education pertaining to justice and reconciliation as of 1996 by the Prison Fellowship International.

Application

In system-wide offenses

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission shows how restorative justice can be used to address system-wide offenses that affect broad swaths of a group or a society.

In criminal cases

In criminal cases, victims can testify about the crime's impact upon their lives, receive answers to questions about the incident, and participate in holding the offender accountable. Meanwhile, offenders can tell their story of why the crime occurred and how it has affected their lives. They are given an opportunity to compensate the victim directly – to the degree possible. In criminal cases, this can include money, community service in general and/or specific to the offense, education to prevent recidivism, and/or expression of remorse.

A courtroom process might employ pretrial diversion, dismissing charges after restitution. In serious cases, a sentence may precede other restitution.

In the community, concerned individuals meet with all parties to assess the experience and impact of the crime. Offenders listen to victims' experiences, preferably until they are able to empathize with the experience. Then they speak to their own experience: how they decided to commit the offense. A plan is made for prevention of future occurrences, and for the offender to address the damage to the injured parties. All agree. Community members hold the offender(s) accountable for adherence to the plan.

While restorative justice typically involves an encounter between the offender and the victim, some organizations, such as the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, emphasize a program's values over its participants. This can include programs that only serve victims (or offenders for that matter), but that have a restorative framework. Indigenous groups are using the restorative justice process to try to create more community support for victims and offenders, particularly the young people. For example, different programs are underway at Kahnawake, a Mohawk reserve in Canada, and at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Lakota nation, within the United States.

In prisons

Besides serving as an alternative to civil or criminal trial, restorative justice is also thought to be applicable to offenders who are currently incarcerated. The purpose of restorative justice in prisons is to assist with the prisoner's rehabilitation, and eventual reintegration into society. By repairing the harm to the relationships between offenders and victims, and offenders and the community that resulted from the crime, restorative justice seeks to understand and address the circumstances which contributed to the crime. This is thought to prevent recidivism (that is, that the offender repeats the undesirable behavior) once the offender is released.

Research of a restorative reentry planning circle process in Hawai‘i showed reduced recidivism that controlled for the self-selection bias that often is difficult to overcome in restorative practices research. The reentry planning circle process was also shown to help children, whose incarcerated parents had one, address the trauma they suffered from losing a parent to prison.

The potential for restorative justice to reduce recidivism is one of the strongest and most promising arguments for its use in prisons. However, there are both theoretical and practical limitations, which can make restorative justice infeasible in a prison environment. These include: difficulty engaging offenders and victims to participate in mediation; the controversial influence of family, friends, and the community; and the prevalence of mental illness among prisoners.

In social work

In social work cases, impoverished victims such as foster children are given the opportunity to describe their future hopes and make concrete plans to transition out of state custody in a group process with their supporters. In social justice cases, restorative justice is used for problem solving.

In schools

Restorative justice has also been implemented in schools. It uses a similar model to programs used by the criminal justice system. Restorative practices can "also include preventive measures designed to build skills and capacity in students as well as adults". Some examples of preventive measures in restorative practices might include teachers and students devising classroom expectations together or setting up community building in the classroom. Restorative justice also focuses on justice as needs and obligations, expands justice as conversations between the offender, victim and school, and recognizes accountability as understanding the impact of actions and repairing the harm. In this approach, teachers, students and the community can reach agreements to meet all stakeholders’ needs. Collectivity is emphasized as the group must create an action plan to heal the harm and find a way to bring the offender back into the community.

While the focus is in making the victim(s) whole, the added benefit of restorative justice programs are a reduction in disciplinary actions such as suspensions and expulsions resulting in lower discipline numbers reported to the state, and more effective reformative and/or reconciliatory actions imposed, such as writing apology letters, performing community service or – for example, in cases of bullying – composing a research paper on the negative effects of bullying. This approach develops and fosters empathy, as participating parties must come to understand the needs of all stakeholders in order for the conflict to be fully rectified. Both the offending party and the wronged/victimized party can address and begin to resolve their obstacles to achieving their education, with the aid of the restorative justice partners. Behavioral problems stemming from grief, for example, may be recognized and acknowledged within restorative justice programs; as a result, the party would be referred to a counselor to receive grief counseling. In theory, this will decrease the likelihood of the offender causing further harm. Some studies claim that taking punitive measures against a grieving person will cause more distress, leading to more troublesome behavior. By approaching student discipline with restorative justice in the forefront, conflicts may be resolved to meet the funding needs of the school district – by way of reduced student absenteeism, rehabilitate the offending party, and to restore justice and make whole the wronged party. Collectivity and empathy are further developed by having students participate in restorative justice circles in administering roles such as mediators or jurors.

Methods

Restorative justice requires a form of meeting between the offender and the victim. A 2013 Cochrane review stressed the need for the offender to meet the victim face-to-face. In addition, the meeting may include people representing the wider community.

Suggested reasons for why it can be effective include:

  • The offender has to learn about the harm they have caused to their victim, making it hard for them to justify their behavior.
  • It offers a chance to discuss moral development to offenders who may have had little of it in their life.
  • Offenders are more likely to view their punishment as legitimate.
  • The programs tend to avoid shaming and stigmatizing the offender.

Many restorative justice systems, especially victim–offender mediation and family group conferencing, require participants to sign a confidentiality agreement. These agreements usually state that conference discussions will not be disclosed to nonparticipants. The rationale for confidentiality is that it promotes open and honest communication.

Victim-offender dialogue

Victim–offender dialogue (VOD), (also called victim–offender mediation, victim–offender conferencing, victim–offender reconciliation, or restorative justice dialogue), is usually a meeting, in the presence of one or two trained facilitators, between victim and offender. This system generally involves few participants, and often is the only option available to incarcerated offenders. Victim Offender Dialogue originated in Canada as part of an alternative court sanction in a 1974 Kitchener, Ontario case involving two accused vandals who met face-to-face with their many victims. One of the first victim–offender mediation projects in the United Kingdom was run by South Yorkshire Probation Service from 1983 to 1986.

Family group conferencing

Family group conferencing (FGC) has a wider circle of participants than VOD, adding people connected to the primary parties, such as family, friends and professionals. FGC is most commonly used for juvenile cases, due to the important role of the family in a juvenile offender's life. Examples can be found in New South Wales, Australia, under the 1997 Young Offenders Act, and in New Zealand under the 1989 Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act. The New South Wales scheme has been favorably evaluated by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Fiji uses this form of mediation when dealing with cases of child sexual assault. While it may be seen as beneficial to involve the victim's family in the process, there are multiple issues stemming from this. For example, the vast majority of offenders are known to the victims in these cases. In a Fijian context, the notion of family extends wider than that of the normative Western idea. Therefore, involving the family in these cases may become complicated, for the family may not necessarily side with the victim or the process itself could cause rifts within the clan. Furthermore, the process as a whole places much emphasis on the victim forgiving the offender, as opposed to the offender making amends with the victim. Overall, the current process has the potential to cause great trauma and revictimise the victim.

Restorative conferences

Restorative conferences (RC) involves a wider circle of participants than VOD and FGC. There are many different names and procedures of operation for these community-based meetings. They are also referred to as Restorative Circles, Restorative Justice Conferences, Community Restorative Boards or Community Accountability Conferences. Specific programs have their own names, such as Community Justice Committees in Canada and Referral Order Panels in England & Wales. Restorative Circles refers to restorative justice conferences in Brazil and Hawaii, though can have a wider meaning in the field of restorative practices.

A conference will typically include the victim, the offender and members of the local community, who have typically received some training. The family and friends of the offender and victim are frequently invited. RC is explicitly victim-sensitive. The community members discuss the nature and impact of the offense with the offender. The discussion continues until restitution is agreed; they may also see that the agreement is fulfilled.

The largest restorative justice conference in history took place in the course of the 1990 reconciliation campaign that ended the blood feuds among ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, which was attended by between 100,000 and 500,000 participants. The reconciliation campaign was led by Anton Çetta, and over a period of three years (1990–1992) approximately one third of the entire population of Kosovo were documented to be actively involved in restorative justice conferences to end the blood feuds.

Circles of Support and Accountability

Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) originated as a project of the "Welcome In", a Mennonite church in Hamilton, Ontario. This approach has demonstrated the capacity to enhance the safe integration of otherwise high-risk sex offenders with their community. Canada judges some sex offenders too dangerous for any form of conditional release, "detaining" them until they serve their entire sentence. A subsequent conviction often leads to designation as a "Dangerous Offender".

Prior to 1994, many such offenders were released without any support or observation beyond police surveillance. Between 1994 and 2007, CoSA assisted with the integration of well over 120 such offenders. Research indicated that surrounding a 'core member' with 5–7 trained volunteer circle members reduced recidivism by nearly 80%. Further, recidivist offences were less invasive and less brutal than without the program. CoSA projects now exist in every Canadian province and every major urban centre. CoSA projects are also operational in several U.S. states (Iowa, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Ohio, Colorado, Vermont) as well as in several United Kingdom regions (Cornwall, Devon, Hampshire, Thames Valley, Leicestershire, North Wales, North Yorkshire, and Manchester).

Sentencing circles

Sentencing circles (sometimes called peacemaking circles) use traditional circle ritual and structure to involve all interested parties. The procedure commonly works as follows: the offender applies for the intervention, a healing circle is held for the victim, a healing circle is held for the offender, a sentencing circle is held and finally, follow-up circles to monitor progress.

Other social movements

Positive criminology and positive victimology

Positive criminology and positive victimology are conceptual approaches, developed by the Israeli criminologist Natti Ronel and his research team, that are well connected to restorative justice theories and practice. Positive criminology and victimology both place an emphasis on social inclusion and on unifying and integrating forces at individual, group, social and spiritual levels that are associated with the limiting of crime and recovery from victimization. In traditional approaches the study of crime, violence and related behaviors emphasizes the negative aspects in people's lives that are associated with deviance, criminality and victimization. A common understanding is that human relationships are affected more by destructive encounters than by constructive or positive ones. Positive criminology and victimology argue that a different approach is viable, based on three dimensions – social integration, emotional healing and spirituality – that constitute positive direction indicators.

Prison abolition

Prison abolition not only calls for the eradication of cages, but also new perspectives and methodologies for conceptualizing crime, an aim that is shared by restorative justice. In an abolitionist style of restorative justice, participation is voluntary and not limited by the requirements of organizations or professionals, the process includes all relevant stakeholders and is mediated by an independent third party. The emphasis is on meeting the needs of and strengthening the community.

Research

A 2007 meta-study of all research projects concerning restorative justice conferencing published in English between 1986 and 2005 found positive results, specifically for victims:

  • Greater ability to return to work, to resume normal daily activities, and to sleep.
  • No cases of offenders verbally or violently abusing victims.
  • Reduced fear of the offender (especially for violence victims); lower perceived likelihood of another offense; increased sense of security; reduced anger towards the offender; greater sympathy for the offender and the offender's supporters; greater feelings of trust in others; increased feelings of self-confidence; reduced anxiety.

Other findings included:

  • The only principled basis for selectively allowing, or banning, RJ is harm reduction.
  • Limited public familiarity and misconceptions about RJ.
  • Greater availability, together with information about victims' positive views is likely to increase the proportion of victims willing to participate.

In July 2011, the International Center for Transitional Justice published a report entitled "To Live as Other Kenyans do: A Study of the Demands of Kenyan Victims of Human Rights Violations". The findings are based on individual and group interviews of victims of human rights abuses from Kenya's 2007 post-election violence. It highlights the importance of a victim-centered approach to determine the most effective mode of implementation for a comprehensive reparations program. The main finding of the report is that victims demand tangible basic benefits lost as a product of violence, such as food and shelter. It also acknowledges the need for symbolic reparations, such as formal apologies. The provision of reparations will in a sense create a restoration of the way life was before violence, and also signal the moving forward of a society through institutional change.

The COREPOL Project (Conflict Resolution, Mediation and Restorative Justice and the Policing of Ethnic Minorities in Germany, Austria and Hungary) has been researching the effects of restorative justice programs in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Its goal is to establish whether restorative justice can lead to better relations between the police and minority groups. Its first stage is to look at the extent and role of RJ programs within the countries. The second stage is to look at the position of certain minority populations within the societies, with the study focusing on Turks in Germany, Roma in Hungary and Africans in Austria. The involvement of the police in RJ programs for minority populations will be explored. Finally, the proposed research will give examples of when RJ can be used to improve communication and interaction between the police and minority groups. The study deals with countries that use the civil law legal system, in contrast to the common law legal system of English-speaking countries. COREPOL is coordinated by the German Police University and funded through the European Commission's Seventh Framework Program (FP7).

Recidivism

Reduction of recidivism is also a goal of RJ, secondary to the restoration of offenders. Proponents argue that it can prevent reoffending and deter other potential criminals. Critics counter that RJ does not significantly influence crime rates.

While some older studies showed mixed results, as of 2013, studies that compared recidivism rates have become more definitive and in favor of restorative justice. Some studies claim modest, relative reductions, but more recent studies are finding significant and meaningful reductions in recidivism rates (see below).

A 1998 meta-analysis by Bonta et al. found that restorative justice programs caused mild reductions in reoffending rates. Latimer, Dowden and Muise carried out a meta-analysis that provided a more precise definition. conducted the second meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ. This study is important because it addresses the file-drawer problem. Also, some of the studies analyzed implemented a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard in research methods), although this does not represent the majority of studies included. This meta-analysis lends empirical support for the effectiveness of RJ to lower recidivism rates and increase compliance and satisfaction rates. However, the authors caution that a self-selection bias is rife through most studies of restorative justice. They reference authors from one study who found no evidence that restorative justice has a treatment effect on recidivism beyond a self-selection effect.

The third meta-analysis on the effectiveness of RJ was conducted by Bradshaw, Roseborough, and Umbreit in 2006. The results of this meta-analysis add empirical support for the effectiveness of RJ in reducing juvenile recidivism rates. Since then, studies by Baffour in (2006) and Rodriguez (2007) have also concluded that RJ reduces recidivism rates compared to the traditional justice system. Bergseth (2007) and Bouffard (2012) supported these findings and also concluded that there may be some long-term effects of RJ over the traditional justice system; as well as RJ being more effective with serious crimes, RJ participants are less likely to commit serious crimes if they do re-offend and they go longer without re-offending. All of these studies found that RJ is equally effective regardless of race.

In 2007, Lawrence W. Sherman and Heather Strang published a review of the previous literature and they conclude that in no way can RJ be more harmful than the traditional justice system. It is at least equally as effective as the traditional justice system in all cases. In most cases (especially with more serious offenses and with adult offenders) it is significantly more effective than the traditional justice system at lowering recidivism rates. It also reduced crime victims' post-traumatic stress symptoms and related costs and desires for violent revenge against their offenders. It provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than the alternative, and saved money overall.

A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration (2013) on the effect of youth justice conferencing on recidivism in young offenders found that there was no significant effect for restorative justice conferencing over normal court procedures for number re-arrested, nor monthly rate of reoffending. They also noted a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders.

Criticism

Theoretical

According to Allison Morris, the following are some of the most common criticisms of restorative justice:

...restorative justice erodes legal rights; restorative justice results in net-widening; restorative justice trivializes crime (particularly men's violence against women); restorative justice fails to "restore" victims and offenders; restorative justice fails to effect real change and to prevent recidivism; restorative justice results in discriminatory outcomes; restorative justice extends police powers; restorative justice leaves power imbalances untouched; restorative justice leads to vigilantism; restorative justice lacks legitimacy; and restorative justice fails to provide "justice".

Another critique of restorative justice suggests that professionals are often left out of the restorative justice conversation. Albert W. Dzur and Susan M. Olson argue that this sector of justice cannot be successful without professionals. They claim that professionals can aid in avoiding problems that come up with informal justice and propose the theory of democratic professionalism, where professionals are not just agents of the state – as traditional understandings would suggest – but as mediums, promoting community involvement while still protecting individuals' rights.

Additionally, some critics like Gregory Shank and Paul Takagi see restorative justice as an incomplete model in that it fails to fix the fundamental, structural inequalities that make certain people more likely to be offenders than others. They and others question the structure of society and the fairness of institutional systems at their very core, pushing for addressing the root causes of many one-on-one offenses as well as for creating a socio-economic system that will be more conducive to harmonious, healthy living in general.

Finally, some researchers agree that more research must be conducted to support the validity of restorative justice in schools, specifically in how it is implemented. More exactly, restorative justice practices that are inconsistent, insufficient, or run out of funding tend to have the worst reputations for success. While many research studies support positive findings in restorative justice, continuing studies are still needed.

Limitations and issues in practice

Some judicial systems only recognize monetary restitution agreements. For instance, if victim and offender agree that the offender would pay $100 and mow the victim's lawn five times, the court would only recognize the $100 as restitution. Some agreements specify a larger monetary amount (e.g., $200) to be paid if the non-monetary restitution is not completed.

Many jurisdictions cap the amount which a juvenile offender can be required to pay. Labor regulations typically limit the personal service tasks that can be performed by minors. In addition, personal service usually must be approved by the juvenile's parents.

According to the Victim Offender Mediation Association, victims are not allowed to profit from restitution (the equivalent of punitive damages); only out-of-pocket losses (actual damages) can be recovered. Courts can disallow unreasonable compensation arrangements.

Both victim and offender can be hesitant to engage in victim–offender dialogue later in the criminal justice process. Once an offender starts serving a sentence, they may believe that the sentence is how they take responsibility for their actions rather than conversing with the victim. For victims, the trial and the sentencing of the offender may terminate the possibilities for discussion. For both offender and victim, victim–offender dialogue is limited in the amount of trust between the two parties.

In the media

Studies by Kelly M. Richards have shown that the general public would be open to the idea of alternative forms of justice, though only after the idea has been explicitly explained to them. According to other studies performed by Vicky De Mesmaecker, in order for restorative justice to become publicly accepted, there must be an effective public relations collaboration between the media and the criminologists.

The use of forgiveness as a tool has in the restorative justice programs, run for victims and perpetrators of Rwandan genocide, the violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and Northern Ireland conflict, has also been documented in film, Beyond Right and Wrong: Stories of Justice and Forgiveness (2012). A tribal form of restorative justice is portrayed in the book Touching Spirit Bear by Ben Mikaelsen.

The 2004 British drama film Red Dust based on the novel by the same name tells an exemplary fictional story about the applied methodology of restorative justice used by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa).

The 2017 Canadian documentary A Better Man follows a meeting between a woman who is recovering from domestic violence and the ex-partner.

Season 2 episode 5 of the NPR podcast Mindshift compares two schools that use restorative discipline practices, one that has already made the transition and one that is just beginning to use these practices. Peace Alliance hosts a twice weekly discussion forum on restorative justice called Restorative Justice on the Rise. There is public discussion about the restorative justice movement, as well as an archive of past discussions since January 27, 2019.

In July 2020 the BBC Radio 4 series The Punch followed the story of Jacob Dunne who, at the age of 18, threw a single punch in a drunken brawl outside a pub in Nottingham, England. His victim, James Hodgkinson, died in hospital nine days later and Dunne was convicted of manslaughter. Meeting face-to-face with the victim's parents had a profound impact on both parties, and the resulting relationship changed Dunne's life in unexpected ways.

Lie point symmetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_point_symmetry     ...