Forgiving the Offender: Ready or Not?

By Randy McCall

Recently, I was contacted by a victim of crime who had some serious questions on the topic of forgiveness. They wanted to know why so many people and groups they associated with kept demanding to know if they had forgiven the offender yet... and if not, why hadn't they?

The victim wanted to know why it was so important to other people? After all, the victim was the one who had survived the offense, not these other people, many of whom were only vague acquaintances. Why were people continually questioning them on the issue?

The question made me sit down and do some serious thinking before responding to their question.

I've worked with a lot of crime victims over the years. I've seen many who came to forgive their offender, and others who never did. Some of those who chose to forgive describe the final act as one of release, of giving up a burden; some referred to it in religious terms, taken from their particular holy books.

In some cases, the person in question wanted to share their new-found sense of peace and wholeness through forgiveness with other victims. They did this by either becoming active in victim support groups, or by joining one of the many restorative justice organizations which exist to help victims.

Social scientists and psychological researchers who've explored the act of forgiveness by crime victims have found at least some evidence that those who reach the point of forgiveness experience less long-term psychological trauma, less physical illness, and may have a faster recovery period to the re-establishment of a normal life. You may find some interesting reading in the American Psychological Association's publication: Forgiveness - A Sampling of Research Results

Note I mentioned "the point of forgiveness"? Reaching a point where a person can forgive is a process, much like the grief process. Each individual is different, and each will react to the trauma of victimization in a different way. The time it will take a person to reach the stage in their emotional journey where they can choose to work towards forgiving will vary greatly.

I've heard the process likened to act of a high-diver; they have to climb to the point where they can take the plunge.

The victim must be ready to take the step... they cannot be coaxed, badgered or ordered into doing it before time; attempting to do so can easily result in a severe emotional backlash.

Unfortunately, our society tends to like simple, quick answers to problems. This is why I believe so many people asked the victim I mentioned in the first paragraph if they had forgiven the offender... because, to many people, it would mean the victim had recovered and was now "fixed".

Being presented with the evident benefits of the act of forgiveness -- social, psychological, and financial (a quicker return to a sense of normalcy means less use of victim support staff time and resources) -- there are some victim advocates who who simply add "forgive offender" to the list of things they recommend the victim do as part of the recovery process.

Now, let me be clear; I'm not saying a large percentage of service groups do this... but over the years, I've heard from a goodly number of crime victims who reported they were told they should/had to forgive the offender as part of their healing process.

A much larger number said that forgiveness was first offered as just a distant possibility, but after time they felt pressured to accept it, as they were repeatedly asked whether they had forgiven the offender yet. Some of these victims -- who were no where near forgiving their offender -- told their advocates they had, simply because they needed the emotional approval and further support of the advocate in question.

Forgiveness should be an option, a door which victims can open and explore when they feel ready. It should never be pushed at victims as a panacea, or in such a way as to make victims feel as though they are disappointing those helping them if they can't accept the concept.

Some people will never reach the point of forgiveness, and it is not for us, as victim advocates, to say this is wrong. Some of the most effective victim rights activists -- and wonderful, kind individuals -- I know are crime survivors who channeled their grief and anger into action and advocacy.

We must remember that victims have already had control taken violently away from once. We should not add to that loss of control by demanding, or applying emotional pressure on them, to accept something they are not ready and willing to fully embrace.

Victim Impact Statements: "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both"

By Randy McCall

The title of this piece is actually a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt. It came to mind a couple of weeks ago, when I was scanning the news and saw this article:
'Dry-eyed justice': Judge questions impact of victims on rulings

A ruling by New Brunswick’s top court that declares victims “cannot be allowed to hijack” a trial and chastens a judge so moved by tearful accounts of loss that he doubled an expected sentence is prompting debate over whether it is time to rethink the judicial system’s focus on victims’ rights.
The judgment has victims’ rights advocates warning their voices are being silenced, but has others applauding the court’s appeal for what the judge described as “dry-eyed justice.” Over the past two decades, victim impact statements have become dramatic and compelling features at most criminal trials.

From a totally detached and legal viewpoint, the judicial ruling makes sense: do we want a justice system where emotion overrules fairness and equitable treatment? Defence lawyers certain do not, and the general public understands that such a system would be inherently unstable and unfair. But how do victims feel?

While every victim I have ever talked to wants to ensure the perpetrator gets just punishment for their crime; the word they stress is "just". I've never met one who believed that their victim impact statement should so sway a judge or jury that the perpetrator would be given two, five or ten times the sentence which the law prescribes.

Let's be precise. Victims want to be treated like human beings: they want to be informed and consulted on the progress of the trial and any plea bargains; they wish to be heard, understood, and make a sometimes impassive and uncaring justice system realize the full impact the crime has had on their lives.

They want to see the perpetrator sentenced according to law of the land; they might wish for a maximum sentence, but they don't wish to see the justice system turned on its head.

Victim impact statements are the method by which they attempt to get across to the court the toll the crime has had on their lives.

In general, the courts heavily control what can and cannot be expressed in victim impact statements, how it can be said, and they certainly control when this statement is heard (only after the offender has been found guilty). All this is done to ensure fairness to the offender, and no judge should use a victim's statement to make a mockery of justice.

But, as the title of this piece says, justice can't be for one side alone. While it is just and fair that offenders be protected against overly emotional judges and sentences, there is an area where victims and witnesses are exposed to emotionally devastating treatment. In the name of the justice mentioned above, we need to see this corrected.

As everyone knows, crime victims are often witnesses as well, called before a court to be examined, and then cross-examined, under a set of arcane laws and rules they know little about.

While on the stand, and particularly when undergoing cross-examination by the defence, victims are open to a tactic commonly known as "aggressive cross-examination". Defence lawyers use verbal attack, haranguing and aggressive questioning of the victim in an attempt to cause them to make a verbal mistake, or utter any statement which the defence can then use to argue the victim is lying, was mistaken, or (and this is the worst) somehow deserved to be victimized.

Of course the prosecutor can object if the defence counsel goes too far, but the defence is often allowed wide latitude by the court, which wants to ensure the accused receives a fair trial, and to avoid having judgments overturned on appeal.

The issue here is not only the tactic in itself, but that the criminal justice system as a whole supports the use of such tactics. Many lawyers believe that the use of such a tactic is quite legitimate, supplying the accused with as full and complete a defence as possible... the basic thought seems to be: "If it works, great. If not, it was still worth a try".

Little thought is given to the psychological effects such a tactic might have on an already traumatized victim. Judith Lewis Herman said it best:

"If one set out by design to devise a system for provoking intrusive post-traumatic symptoms, one could not do better than a court of law"

There are certain groups which most courts label as "vulnerable witnesses"; these are offered some protections and extra support. Normally this list includes children, the mentally ill, and victims of sexual assault.

All other adult witnesses -- no matter what their traumatic experiences or mental state, short of incapacity -- are legitimate targets for aggressive cross-examination.

To me, seeing a court system demand dry-eyed, unemotional sentences for the perpetrator, yet at the same time allowing... nay encouraging... the perpetrator's lawyers to verbally attack emotionally vulnerable witnesses to the point of breaking, displays a glaring inequality in the justice system.
The question then becomes, "what can be done about it"?

There is a developing school of criminal justice thought called Therapeutic Jurisprudence. This school of legal thought focuses on creating a criminal justice system which also takes into account the mental and emotional health of all who pass through it.

It examines the roles of lawyers and judges, and suggests they take an interest not only in the law and the rules of court procedure, but in the mental and emotional well-being of their clients.

I would call on criminal justice systems around the world to realize the possibility exists their court systems can deliver as traumatic a blow to the psyche of crime victims as the criminal did in committing the originating offence. Our legal system has developed over centuries, altering and adapting as new sciences technologies came along. It's time to apply the sciences of psychology and mental health to law as well.

In the name of the dry-eyed justice first mentioned above, I'd like to call on courts to begin re-considering their policies and procedures, and take into account the potential traumatic effects they expose victims and witnesses to.

Justice, fair treatment and physical and emotional safety should be guaranteed not only to the perpetrator, but to the victim / witness as well.

For those who are interested in background information on aggressive cross-examination or therapeutic jurisprudence:

• Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, including Children
• Consultation Paper Vulnerable Witnesses in Civil Proceedings
• High Court of Nambia Vulnerable Witnesses Project
• Key Findings from Vunerable Witnesses Survey
• Propriety and Impropriety in Cross Examination
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Adversarial Injustice: Questioning Limits
• Transforming Aggressive Prosecution Policies: Prioritizing Victims' Long-term Safety in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases
• Victim Participation and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A Canadian Perspective
• Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: A review of the literature
• Vulnerable Witnesses - Rights and Responsibilities

Tunnel Vision Deja Vu

By Randy McCall

Last week I found an interesting online article, posted on a Psychology Today blog by Mark White. This particular article, titled Tunnel Vision in the Criminal Justice System examined the work of several professors, which detailed how false convictions happen when investigators and prosecutors unconsciously decide that a particular individual must be the perpetrator.

In essence, the article says that law enforcement and prosecution, having committed to the idea that they have the criminal in custody, then views all following investigations, collected evidence and interrogations through a biased lens.

Findley uses this case as an example of tunnel vision in the criminal justice system, identifying mistakes made at each stage of the process that can be traced to common cognnitive biases. In Findley's words, "tunnel vision is the product of a variety of cognitive distortions, such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and outcome bias, which can impede accuracy in what we perceive and in how we interpret what we perceive" ("Tunnel Vision," p. 6).

Some quick definitions would be helpful here:

Confirmation Bias: from the article "Confirmation bias describes the natural human tendency to interpret new information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, to remember previous events in a way that confirms those beliefs, and to discount or discard information that challenges them"

Hindsight Bias: from the article "Hindsight bias describes another natural tendency to regard a past event as inevitable, or at least much likely than originally thought, after it is confirmed by later information. Otherwise known as the "knew-it-all-along" effect, it stems from the way we construct our memories of events, using all of the information gathered since the original occurrence to arrive at a much more definite causal chain of events than is objectively warranted."

Outcome Bias: An error made in evaluating the quality of a decision when the outcome of that decision is already known.

We can sum these up much more simply - if the article author will forgive me for the vast oversimplification - as:

• I believe what I've seen
• I've seen it all before
• It's always worked out for the best.

I was particularly interested in the list of cognitive distortions listed above, as - having my own cognitive biases - it immediately occurred to me that we could apply the Tunnel Vision effect to crime victims in-and-out-of the criminal justice system.

Let's call it Tunnel Vision Deja Vu.

Within some elements of society - and certainly within the judicial and reparation systems - there are a series of biases or beliefs about crime victims. Crime victims, viewed through this lens, are all assigned the same general thoughts, motivations and desires, despite their drastically different experiences, personalities, ethnic or cultural backgrounds, and religious or ethical persuasions.

Some of the more common stereotypes, which I'm sure you've read or seen before: Victims are weak, are damaged goods, are somehow at fault for - or caused - their own victimization, are always exaggerating, are attention seekers, are solely interested in vengeance, will always seek maximum penalties, are only interested in money, and so on.

Precisely how these beliefs developed is the topic for a much larger article. I can take a few educated guesses, however.

In some cases it's simply a matter of psychological self defense... for example, the belief that victims caused their own victimization springs from a refusal to believe that: "something bad could happen to me... I would never do that, therefore I am safe, and they were stupid".

In other cases, it could be the result of a very negative experience by judicial staff with a few victims. It's only human nature to remember the worst, not the best, about people, just as a defense: remember "Once burned, twice shy"? Of course, these staff are going to be the ones training new staff members, and sharing their experiences with peers. It doesn't take long for the worst possible examples to be passed around between offices, courts or regions. Over the years the few negative examples from different offices build up and become the base norm. This field is also particular susceptible to the "We know what's best for you" and "It's always worked out for the best" viewpoints. It makes life so much easier than tailor-making solutions.

Finally, some of these viewpoints can be based in the systemic policy of an agency, as is shown in great detail in Adding Insult to Injury, a report by the Ombudsman of Ontario on the Provincial Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as well as in a UK report on their national Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Compensating Victims of Violent Crime. Both these reports found policies having staff to stonewall victim applications, to not give full information, and to treat all applications as suspicious (e.g they only want money), all in an effort to pay out as little compensation as possible. Unfortunately, what starts out as a policy, ends up as a bias.

Thus, while Tunnel Vision can drive innocent people into prison, for victims Tunnel Vision Deja Vu creates entire mindsets which then try to force victims of crime into pre-set molds, prepared expectations, assembly-line solutions, and pre-determined successful outcomes.

Time society took another look, don't you think?

Society: Being of two (or more) minds on crime victims

By Randy McCall

Society as a whole tends to be in denial in its view of victims of crime.


Victims of crime are recognized as needing society's help and support, yet at the same time many people can't help speculating whether the victim didn't cause -- or at least contribute to -- their own suffering.


Some people want to hold victims up as a noble icon -- the heroic sufferer of outrageous events . Yet society as a whole also sees victims as reminders that terrible things can happen to good people, that there is still a savage underside to society, and that the world isn't as safe as many people feel it is. Feelings which, consciously or unconsciously, makes people want to hide victims from view, so they don't have think about these bad things.


Society says victims are citizens who deserve protection and justice. Yet, there are elements of society who are more than willing to exploit crime victims, particularly when there is the potential for monetary gain or personal advancement.


Just scanning the news for the month of March provides several sterling examples:


Crime exhibit dispute shows families' scars linger

A dispute over an exhibition of gruesome evidence from famous crimes escalated Thursday, showing that time does not heal the scars to murder victims' families even after four decades.
The son of assassinated Sen. Robert F. Kennedy wrote he was horrified that his father's clothing from the night he was assassinated in 1968 was being displayed in Las Vegas. He called it "a macabre publicity stunt."

In this article, we see that officials in Los Angles decided to display evidence items from various sensational crimes to provide the public with an insight on "...tragedy of murder and the difficult jobs law enforcement detectives have in solving often very complicate cases." The items on display included Bobby Kennedy's bloody shirt, the rope taken from around Sharon Tate's neck, and items from the OJ Simpson trial.


According to all reports, no family member of any victim was contacted before the items were put on display; items were removed and apologies were issued only after family members complained.


While the Chief Beck and DA Cooley have offered apologies, the victim's families are not impressed with the fact the very people charged with protecting victims saw no problem with exploiting their loved ones for profit... whether financial gain, increased prestige, or otherwise.


Remember we were talking about society's denial in it's treatment of victims? Well, really, just how successful could a display of murder weapons and bloody clothing be?

"Cooley said it had more visitors in two days than the Los Angeles Police Historical Museum has had in a year. Police detective Dennis Kilcoyne, who oversaw the exhibit, estimated at least 6,000 visitors saw it."

The response of the surviving family members was summed up nicely by the son of Bobby Kennedy:

He said he spoke personally with Beck and that "the chief maintained to me that hanging my dad's bloody shirt from a mannequin in a casino was part of an effort to train detectives. Perhaps he believes that, but to me it seems like a cheap bid for attention."


"It is almost like a traffic cop inviting motorists to slow down and take a good look as they go past a tragedy," Kennedy wrote.

It seems that, sensationalism aside, the people who came to view the display chose to see it as a display of history or technical expertise, looking only at the surface. They chose to ignore the terrible details of the violent events these items represented; of the crimes and suffering which had to take place for a simple piece of rope or bloody clothing to have such "historic meaning."


When asked what he thought of the family member's complaints, one member of the public put his views this way:

He said he found nothing distasteful about it, adding that he thought "it would be more gory."
Asked if he thought it might be hurtful to victims' families, he said: "How would it be hurtful? It's history. It already happened."

Two other stories from this month's collection of media pieces also point out how some people are more than willing to use victims of crime as tools for financial or personal gain.


Georgia House passes bill to keep crime photos sealed

The desire to change legislation comes as a reporter for Hustler magazine made an Open Records request to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for photos depicting the nude and decapitated body of Meredith Emerson. Emerson was murdered in 2008 after hiking in the North Georgia Mountains.

Just the fact someone would try to acquire these photos underscores my point about the split personality of society when it comes to victims. Why? Very simply, they would not have attempted to acquire the photos if they didn't think they would sell to at least some elements of the public.


Another issue in the news is the use of recorded 911 calls by media, just to wring the heartstrings of their listeners. While some victims support the use of these calls to ensure mistakes by 911 operators or systems are made public and corrected, others find the replaying of loved a one's last desperate call for help to be overwhelming and too much to bear:

...Hoblick, out of town when his son Jake died, heard his older son John's 911 call on the news and asked Cretul to do something about keeping the emergency calls out of the public domain.

So we again see the dichotomy of crime victims in society... with society saying they wish to protect and honor victims, but at the same time feeding off the tragedy and drama of their victimization. The media use the audio tapes to increase their viewership; conversely, the media wouldn't try to use such tactics unless they had been proven effective.


In other words, more people do "tune in" to the media who use the tapes.


Can arguments of free speech and education be made to support these kind actions? Certainly, but:


What education is contained in a scream from a recorded 911 call?


Is the attempt to acquire and publish the picture of a the body of a nude, decapitated woman really a free speech issue?


Is the lure of impressing colleagues and the public (ignoring the topic of revenue generation through admission fees) so seductive that even those charged with protecting victims can't generate the empathy to realize surviving family members might be affected by such a display of items from their deaths?


The answer, sadly, is recorded in our daily news.

...


Wait... hold the presses!


I'll bet you thought I was done, didn't you? Truth to tell, so did I... but the universe sometimes has a way of helping you reinforce the point you're trying to make.


After finishing my article, I thought I'd go to the gym and -- like so many other people -- try and wear off a winter's worth of inactivity. My gym has a bank of televisions set up for those who are using the treadmills, so I was watching a national new channel while trotting away.


The news anchor, running through a list of stories, said, "...now listen to this". Low and behold, they started playing a partial recording of a 911 call; a transcript overlaid on the screen showed the 911 operator telling the caller to "put the phone down now", as a threatening person was in the room.


As the audio faded out, the anchor said that what followed next was a vicious beating, which we would get to hear right after a break for commercials.


Unbelievable. My condolences go to the victim of this crime. Their call, their assault, their pain and cries for help were reduced by a media outlet to a sound bite, used to entice jaded viewers to not change channels during the commercial break.


Media companies in general are publicly very supportive of victims of crime, yet at the same time they have no qualms about using those very same victims to appeal to the lowest of sensation seekers amongst their audience. Why? All in the name of retaining viewers, since viewers watch commercials, and the selling of commercial time is what makes them money. The larger their regular audience, the more they can charge for air time, and the higher their profits.

"On your mark... get set...." the race to a UN Treaty on Victim Rights

By Randy McCall


In an exciting development in the area of global crime victim rights, the World Society of Victimology has recently announced that the Society has "decided to support the move to elevate the UN Declaration of 1985 to a more timely and detailed convention."


While these very dry words don't sound the least exciting in themselves, they are actually the firing of a starting gun, signaling the beginning of a lobbing effort to have the United Nations create an official international treaty -- known in UN diplo-speak as a "Convention" -- on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.


As I mentioned in a previous post, the World Society helped formulate the Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which the United Nations voted to accept in 1985, followed shortly by supporting documents written by WSV members: A Guide for Policy Makers and the Handbook on Justice for Victims. Since then, a large number of countries and international organizations have used the Declaration and accompanying documents as the measuring sticks for creating and administering victim rights laws and policies within their own borders, including:

• Australia
• Canada
• Council of Europe
• Japan
• New Zealand
• Taiwan
• and many others

The Declaration, however, was only an agreement in principle between UN member nations, essentially a "suggestion" of what UN affiliated countries should provide to their citizens. It had no force in law, and no UN member state had to offer their citizen's any of the rights or forms of treatment it recommended.


A Convention, as a full treaty, would hold the power of law, requiring UN member nations to provide victims of crime and the abuse of power the rights and privileges set out in the Convention. Obviously, there may be stiff opposition to passage of such a Convention from UN member states, whether due to cost concerns, or because certain countries don't want to give such rights to their citizens.


Along with the WSV's announcement of their support to move the Declaration to full Convention status, they announced the Society will be fielding a team of experts to attend the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Salvador, Brazil, 12-19 April 2010) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime-congress/crime-congresses.html to represent the Society and to advocate to UN members for the passage of the Convention.


This team will be comprised of internationally respected experts in the fields of victim rights, criminal, justice, and academic victimology. They include (but aren't limited to):

• WSV President Prof. Dr. Groenhuijsen (Director, INTERVICT, Netherlands)
• Vice Presidents, Annette Pearson de Gonzalez (Brazil) and Michael O'Connell (Commissioner for Victim Rights, South Australia)
• Prof. Dr. John Dussich, Chair of the UN Liaison Committee (Director, TIVI, Japan)
• Prof. Dr. Sam Garkawe (Associtate Professor, Australia)
• Professor Hidemichi Morosawa (Chairman, TIVI, Japan), and others

In preparation for this trip, the WSV -- in consultation with victimology centers such as INTERVICT (Netherlands), TIVI (Japan), and with individual experts in victim rights and criminal justice from around the world -- have provided an updated Draft proposal for the Convention. For those who would like to have some insights on how this proposal was developed, you can obtain a copy of a discussion held at the WSV's last Symposium in Japan, August 2009:

Dussich, John J.P. and Mundy, K.G. (eds.): Raising the Global Standards for Victims: The Proposed Convention on Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Tokiwa International Institute February 15 and 16, 2008. Tokiwa International Victimology Institute. Tokyo (Seibundo) 2009 ISBN 978 - 4 - 7923 - 9191 - 1

Unfortunately, this document is presently only available for purchase; the WSV is working to make it publicly available, and I hope to be able to let our readers know when this happens.


The United Nations normally records all proceedings and press conferences, and makes these video recordings available to the public for free. Once the Brazil conference is over, I'll post the links for any relevant text or audio-visual files the UN provides.


If you'd like to help support this measure, you can do so by asking the victim rights organization of your choice to provide support the WSV in lobbying the UN, or by joining the WSV or any of the affiliated organizations with which they work.

Criminal Justice Reform: Guiding A Change We Can Believe In

By Randy McCall


Looking over news headlines for the last several months, there's one inescapable conclusion; ready or not, changes are coming to the criminal justice system in your country.

They may not be the kind of changes you're thinking of. Victims of crime, and those who advocate for them, need to be aware of potential changes which may be quickly coming in wake of forced austerity programs in government agencies, due either to an increased state debt burden, or a reduction in the tax base.

In many countries, the cost of expensive trials and long prison terms are beginning to be seen as an overwhelming burden the taxpayers, and a drain on resources which some say could be better used in crime prevention programs than in the warehousing of prisoners.

One of the first articles which caught my eye was this: Criminal justice: Tough on crime? Check. Smart on crime? Not so much. The first few paragraphs very explicitly states the opinion of the author:

Numbers from recent years show Texas near the top in adults on probation or parole, prisoners in state correctional institutions, inmates under 18 in state prisons and (here's the punch line) crimes per capita.

Somehow, somewhere, we have been doing something wrong. And that adds up to an unsatisfactory return on what will be a $10.8 billion investment in public safety and criminal justice in the state's 2010-2011 budget.

That's almost 10 percent of state tax dollars. By comparison, 6.7 percent goes to business and economic development and 1.2 percent goes to natural resources.
The reality is that crime stats, more than being a measure of our success in fighting crime, are a measure of our failure in so many other areas.

Some more numbers: Texas has about 155,000 state prisoners. Almost 44,000 have a history of mental illness. On average, a Texas inmate made it to the 10th grade.

We are not getting a sufficient return on our criminal justice dollars because we do not make sufficient investment in other areas, including mental health treatment and public education.

Indeed, in almost every US state, we're seeing stories of justice and victim support programs being cut for lack of funds, on the costs of incarceration and on the early release of prisoners to reduce overcrowding or reduce costs, and on the use of alternative sentencing projects such as the one described in: City signals intent to put fewer teenagers in jail

The Bloomberg administration plans to merge the city’s Department of Juvenile Justice into its child welfare agency, signaling a more therapeutic approach toward delinquency that will send fewer of the city’s troubled teenagers to jail.

There is also a groundswell movement to include the use of Restorative Justice principles as additions -- or, at times, alternatives -- to incarceration for juveniles or non-violent offenders. Even the US Sentencing Commission, which sets federal sentencing guidelines, is ensuring proponents of restorative justice are included in their victim advisory group. Around the world, successful programs are being expanded, including those in Peru, the UK, Taiwan, Turkey, and many others.


In many parts of the US, there is a general dissatisfaction with the justice system as a whole, so much so that a bill to carry out a complete review of the US criminal justice system is receiving broad support.

U.S. Sen. Jim Webb's bill to undertake a broad review of the nation's criminal justice system — on the basis that the one we have isn't working — is one step closer to fruition.


Webb's bill — to appoint a "National Crime Commission" of 13 criminal justice experts — calls for a good, hard look at the justice system "from top to bottom." The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and will go now to the Senate floor.

Webb, D-Va., wants a review of everything from drug laws to the treatment of mentally ill inmates to job training programs for prisoners, and everything in between.

Webb talks about how it's unsustainable for taxpayers to simply continue to put more and more people into jails.

The U.S., Webb says, has 5 percent of the world's population but a quarter of its prisoners. There are four times as many mentally ill people imprisoned than in hospitals, he said.

"The overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle for restructuring our criminal justice system is very encouraging for our country," Webb said Thursday. "We are taking an inclusive, broad-based approach here, and ... that's the best way to move our country away from a system based on ideology and fear, and toward what is fair and what keeps us safe."

The bill, which passed on a voice vote out of the committee, has strong bipartisan support and counts groups as diverse as the Fraternal Order of Police, National District Attorneys Association, CATO Institute, NAACP and ACLU are also on board.

It's not just the US which is considering a massive overhaul of their justice systems to prevent tax dollars from going down what now appears to be a bottomless pit. In the United Kingdom, the UK Parliament Justice Committee has issued a report recommending the UK prison population should be cut by a third, while warning of a developing crisis:

A committee of MPs has warned that the criminal justice system is ‘facing a crisis of sustainability’ as government spending on prisons takes resources away from other aspects of criminal justice.

The Justice Committee said the government should make ‘radical moves’ to shift resources away from incarceration towards rehabilitation and projects that tackle the underlying causes of offending like social exclusion, poor education and drug addiction.

The call was backed by Law Society legal aid manager Richard Miller, who said that a reduction in spending on prisons would leave more cash for the legal aid budget.

Certainly, in the UK, the crush of the prison population has reached the point where there is now talk about bringing back prison ships as a way to alleviate overcrowding. Recently UK Justice Minister Jack Straw spoke at a public meeting on the need for extensive criminal justice reform (Video, 36 minutes)

No matter where in the world you live, you will very likely be seeing reforms such as I've described, either as part of austerity programs, as part of social consciousness movements or justice reform projects, or promoted as part of crime prevention programs (using the money in programs that help to stop people from becoming criminals in the first place.

Some of these programs and ideas you may agree with; others may go against everything you believe. The point is that these changes are coming; the changed world economy has seen to this.

What we: as survivors, as advocates, or as organizations must do is stay abreast of developments, trends and plans in our regions, so we can make our voices heard in the halls of government.

Together we can help guide the coming changes into a shape we all can live with.

Does a Rose by Any Other Name Really Smell So Sweet?

By Randy McCall


Pardon me if I pull up my soapbox.


I want to talk about words. Actually, certain specific words and phrases. Words which the political pundits, some people in the media, and those with a personal axe to grind, seem to misuse on a regular basis.


Words have power, as we all know. Words not only carry specific definitions, but often emotional overtones, or subtexts of implied meaning which are generally accepted and implicitly understood by the public.


If I call an average citizen a hero for, say, capturing a criminal, you'll all know exactly what I mean. There's more though... there's a whole range of subtext that comes with the word. What images come to mind when you say the word "hero" to yourself? Brave? Unselfish? Self sacrifice? Rescue? Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?


Yet, given the situation, I could just as easily call the same person a vigilante for their actions... and that word carries with it a whole other host of implied not-so-positive meanings: illegality, violence, revenge.


Yet we're talking about the same person and events.


So words themselves -- and the choice of words -- can have a great power to change how people think about the subject being written about.


What does this have to do with victim rights? As I mentioned earlier, there are a host of words which get misused repeatedly; some apparently on purpose, when someone is trying to cast another person or group in a specific light.


Sometimes other words get misused because the way a word is used is slowly changing (in slang or street language) and the writer doesn't realize how that word will be interpreted by some of their readers.


Finally, there are times the writer is just using a different dictionary than everyone else: for example, the dictionary definition of a word may be completely than, say, the legal definition of the word.


Today I'd like to put the record straight on just a few of these oft misused words and phrases. Which is why I said I'm "pulling up my soapbox" today. From here on, what you'll be reading are my opinions, my observations, and -- well, let's face it -- my pet peeves. You may disagree, and I'd be glad to hear from you in the comments area if you do.


So, let's take a look at these one at a time.



Sexual Assault, Sexual Abuse and Rape


These three words often get tangled up when used by writers who aren't used to both the common and legal definitions. It doesn't help that dictionaries often give definitions of sexual assault and sexual abuse and rape which are practically identical. Yet, observation shows that each is mostly used to describe only certain specific crimes or types of victims. Rather than specific dictionary definitions, we have to look at how these phrases are generally used and accepted.


The fastest and easiest way of doing is to do a search in Google News for the these phrases. Just click on the following links and see the kind of stories that come up:

• Google News search: Sexual Assault
• Google News search: Sexual Abuse
• Google News search: Rape
  

In general, you'll notice that the term "sexual assault" is almost entirely used to refer to late-teen and older victims who have suffered a single episode (of indeterminate duration) of unwanted sexual contact, short of actual rape. If there was more than one incident, writers normally talk about "repeated sexual assaults". On the other hand, the term "sexual abuse" is mostly used to refer to (and in most people conjures up images of) pre-teens and adults who have experienced repeated episodes of sexual assault or rape over an extended period of time: months or even years.


When it comes to the word "rape" (sexual assault with penetration), you'd think it would be hard to misuse or misunderstand, wouldn't you? But I've seen numerous instances where the writer uses the phrase "sexual assault" rather than the word rape, mostly -- from my observations -- in a (conscious or unconscious) attempt to soften the emotional burden on the reader.


Why do I have a problem with this? Simply because it minimizes what the victim went through. I have seen cases where a victim of rape finally decides to tell friends what happened to them, only to hear back: "What? You were raped? But I saw in the paper it was only sexual assault...".


So to all writers, let me say: If you're going to write about this subject at all, be honest with yourself, and with your readers. Honor what the victim has gone through. Attempting to minimize the crime also minimizes the victim.



Survivor


I've found that this word is can be very confusing to those not familiar with the lexicon of the crime victim assistance world.


In recent years, many victims of crime have started to refer to themselves -- and ask that others refer to them -- as survivors, not victims. Why? They feel that by being continually called a victim means they are forever identified as the victim of the perpetrator; that, effectively, they are forever labeled as being defeated, lesser, reduced by what that individual has done to them. They're not, as they'll loudly tell you. The perpetrator did something to them once, but that was in the past. They refuse to be defined by the act committed against them. They go on, they grow, they flourish... they have survived the event.


Of course, this clashes with the common use of "survivor" when referring to the family members of those killed by homicide, or those involved, but not killed, in an accident or disaster. If the language is misused, it can create terrible confusion in your readers.


If a victim of a crime asks to be described as a survivor, listen to them... it will mean much to their self-image and help in their recovery if you do so. Then, for the sake of your general readership, please take the few sentences to explain why you're referring to them as a survivor... it will prevent so much confusion!



Victimhood and Victimology


The misuse of these two words is particularly rampant on Internet blogs.


Victimhood, or the "cult of victimhood", is a term many pundits use to describe when a person or group claims the mantle of being a victim, of: (pick any or all of the following) racial or religious intolerance, bias, or of mistreatment b society in general. These authors imply these people or groups do this in order to avoid effort, to avoid blame, to procure sympathy, or to demand financial or emotional support.


Victimology, on the other hand is:

"...the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system — that is, the and courts, and corrections officials — and the connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements.

In fact, in its most up-to-date incarnation, victimology -- which first started out in the 1950s as a term from the field of criminology that referred to the study of how the actions of victims contributed to their becoming victims of crime -- has developed into an entirely separate profession and field of study, focused on helping victims of crime, tragedy and the abuse of power.


Instead, what we see are many blog writers using the term pejoratively, interchangeably with victimhood, when speaking of groups or individuals who are falsely claiming a form of victimhood for their own benefit. For example: "They're just using that victimology to demand better treatment", or "That group is faking victimology".


These authors are taking the word completely out of context, and assigning their own meaning to it, apparently because it sounds scientific, with an assumption of applied authority. Colloquial dictionaries are even listing how this word is misused in insulting or minimizing contexts. If we similarly twisted the language when using other words, we'd be writing that criminology is the study of how to become a criminal, or that psychology referred to people pretending to be psychos.


Oh, it may well be that the accepted use of the word is changing (as I mentioned can happen), and eventually it might come to mean both the science of aiding victims of crime, as well as slang for the practice of calling oneself a victim for advantage.


I, for one, will fight this till my last breath. But that's just me. Can just I ask, for myself and others in the field of victimology, if the urge comes upon you to misuse the word as I've described, just say NO, ok?


On a final note, I'd like to ask all writers, pundits, politicians and the media... take care how you use (or misuse) your words. Not only will you get your point across in a much clearer fashion, but you'll also come across as well informed and empathic to those who have been victims of crime and the people who work with them.

In Harm's Way

By Randy McCall

As devastating as the effects of crime are on the victims of crime and their families and friends, we should also remember the toll taken on those who work with these people: law enforcement officers, medical personnel, and victim advocates.

All of these people voluntarily offer their help and services -- sometimes at risk of their lives -- to help victims of crime. To state the obvious: police officers help by solving the crime or capturing the offender; medical personal provide physical treatment; and victim advocates work with the victim at the scene, during the investigation and trial, and afterwords, helping the victim on the road to reestablishing a sense of normality.

These people often see the worst the world has to offer. Police deal with the criminals and the worst of human behavior, and are often the first to view scenes of nightmarish violence. Medical personnel treat the cut, bruised and broken bodies, trying to mend the physical damage. Victim advocates can serve in several roles: as crisis scene advocates, who arrive at the crime scene shortly after police (often seeing scenes of violence and bloodshed) and who provide immediate support and assistance to a victim who is often in a state of shock and severe emotional upset, and they continue to act as a liaison between the victim and law enforcement, until such time as the case actually goes to trial.

Once this point is reached, another advocate -- one working for the court's victim / witness program -- starts to provide support and information during the long period of the trial, and tries to help the victim deal with a sometimes uncaring justice system and the many possible long term effects of crime victimization.

After the trial, should the victim be in need, there are many support groups and victim aid organizations that continue to supply emotional support and aid for as long as needed.

These unselfish people see -- and help others deal with -- pain, sorrow, grief, rage, and the results of violence and malice, on almost a daily basis. They easily become emotionally involved with the people they are helping. The repeated exposure to these scenes can, over time, cause the person to experience what is known variously as: secondary or vicarious trauma, critical incident stress, compassion fatigue, or simply burnout.

This secondary trauma can cause the service worker to become another victim, as all that they have seen and had to deal with becomes a weight too heavy to bear. It can being to affect their behavior, their way of thinking, how they perform on the job, and how they relate to their loved ones.

Some of the signs of secondary or caregiver trauma can include (but are certainly not limited to):

• Fatigue, loss of energy, listlessness , loss of efficiency
• Sadness, depression, withdrawal from others or from activities, loss of faith in others or in previously strongly-held beliefs
  
• Apathy, indifference, emotional numbness, a sense of demoralization
• Inability to work well with victims or really hear what they are saying; "tuning them out"
  
• Confusion, difficulty making decisions, difficulty concentrating
• Quickness to make the worst possible conclusion
  
• Loss of emotional control; quick to anger, grieve, sadness
  
• A sense they have lost the capacity of happiness, creativity, control over their lives
  
• A sense of isolation
• Nightmares, sleep disturbances, nervousness, easy to startle, difficulty relaxing
• Abrupt changes in habit and the use (or misuse of) drugs, alcohol, or other negative behaviors

Of course, all these professions recognize their personnel can become victims in their own right to secondary trauma, and have well-established programs and support groups within their various agencies to help prevent, detect and aid those officers, advocates or support personnel who fall victim to this most serious of occupational hazards.

At this time of year, when we celebrate so much, take a few moments to think of the people out there, right now, in the cold, at all hours of the day and night, in the way of harm both physical and mental, hoping only to help others.