Open Access Research Article
IMPORTANCE OF VICTIMOLOGY IN SPECIAL REFERENCE WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN INDIA.
Published Paper
Article Details
IMPORTANCE OF VICTIMOLOGY IN SPECIAL
REFERENCE WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN INDIA.
AUTHORED BY - RAJEEV SHIRISHKUMAR GANDHI
LL.M. 2nd Year.
Object of the
Research
The
object of this research is to explore the extent to which the present justice system provides
the various facilities and scopes to the victims of crimes. The issues arising
out of Victimology are not just legal
but also social, economic and ethical. The area of study would be to explore the problems and their
solutions to victims especially in the case of women and children. The vastness of the subject would necessitate putting
restrictions on the scope of study.
It is proposed to restrict the scope of study to legal issues as far as they
come under the traditional ambit of
Criminal Justice System.
The main objects of the study are:
1. To study the
Nature & Development of Victimology.
2. To study
the concept of Victimology.
3. To study the attitude of Police and Judiciary towards women and child victims.
4. To study the functional
aspect of Victimology specially relating to women and children.
5. To evaluate
the response of present
laws in India to compensate and restore the victims of crime through
the present criminal justice system.
INTRODUCTION
For
too long, the law has centered its attention more on the rights of the criminal
than on the victim of the crime. It
is high time we reverse this trend and put the highest priority on the victims and the potential victims. Crime
victims are the “forgotten persons” of the criminal justice system, valued only for their capacity to report crimes
and to appear in court as witnesses.
Similarly,
Siegal characterized this inequity in the following manner: “vulnerable, angry, insecure, selfless, the victim who survives observes a criminal who is fed,
housed, given legal, medical,
psychological, and psychiatric aid - even education and vocational training. The victim. suffers alone” The victims
experiences with the professionals of the system- police, lawyers, court officials and other those running
compensation agencies - are rarely considered, but will affect their attitudes
to that system.
If victims come to regard
their treatment as too stressful, demeaning, unfair, distorting of
reality, too remote or too little concerned
with their own rights, feelings and interests or if decisions are made which
are felt to be unsatisfactory, it is
possible that this „secondary victimization? by the system may lead to disenchantment, disinterest and future
non - operation, not only by the victim, but also by his friends and relatives.
Broadly
speaking in India four agencies are concerned with the administration of
criminal justice. These are
Legislature, Police and Prosecution, Courts and Correctional agencies. The legislature provides for the broad
framework of legislation with in which all other agencies operate.
The police are concerned
with the maintenance of law and order.
The
courts are concerned with administration
of justice through various procedures and correctional services work through
several institutional and non- institutional programs. Emphasis of
correctional services has shifted from deterrence to reformation and stress is
on reformation of offenders by giving them more humane treatment in prisons. Criminal
administration at present[1]
has nothing more to do in favour of crime victims that they actually deserve.
Nature & Development
–
When
a crime is reported to police, search is made for the criminal. They maintain
statistics on the arrest, conviction,
imprisonment and release of criminals or suspected criminals. The police are required by law to respect
concrete and specific rights of offenders but it turns a blind eye towards the plight of victims and victims are left to
the mercy of police from which they
have no escape. During the course of trial accused is treated as a privileged
person and is provided all possible
aid and services including a defense counsel, if necessary at the cost of state. Courts interpret the law and
administer justice by adjudicating on the basis of evidence placed before them whether offender is
guilty or not and on conviction award sentence, proportionate to the nature of crime.
Michael Fooner an eminent criminologist in an article entitled “Victim
Induced Criminality” observed: - the
history of crime and punishment in the whole civilized world reveals a
steadily increasing concern with the treatment of criminal and a virtual
blackout of attention to the situations of the victim. For
more than thousand years prior to the mid - twentieth century, the victim of crime in our society and in the
administration of justice has been ignored”.
Justice Krishna Iyer writing on „The Criminal Process and Legal Aid?
observed, “Tears shed for the accused
are traditional and „trendy? but what the law has done for the victim of crime, the unknown martyr?” The above cited
observation of a former Judge of Supreme Court of India makes it clear that the criminal law in India is not
victim oriented rather it is offender oriented.
The sufferings of victim, often immeasurable, are entirely overlooked in
misplaced sympathy for the criminal.
The modern criminal law,[2]
which is supposed to represent the social
ambitions and norms, is designed to punish as well as to reform the criminal,
but it overlooks an important by-product of crime, the victim.
During
the last century, there have been far reaching changes in criminal justice
system concerning the rights of the
accused during the investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and the punishment to be imposed
in the event of conviction. The whole spectrum
of criminal jurisprudence is ordained to perceive and permeate the
interests of the accused of crime and
to neglect the victim as a ponderous
necessarian. Thus unmindful and untoward
trendy threat towards
the accused has left the complainant the „ unknown martyr’’ of crime.
Criminal Justice
Delivery System, traditionally perceives a victim of crime as merely
a source of information and evidence. It assumes that the claims of a crime victim are sufficiently satisfied by conviction of the crime perpetrator. This traditionally accepted
assumption, though seems to be right, just and convincing in the light
of prominent functions of criminal
law and his (victim?s) faith in Criminal Justice System, in the light of
current penological thinking,
however, seems to be unjust, unfair and inequitable when society and state are resorting to every possible„ measure?
to „reform? and „rehabilitate? an offender and
not displaying their equal concern for compensating victims of crime.
However modem victimologists, feel that the traditionally accepted
assumption is less persuasive and ostensibly „unjust?
unfair and inequitable? to victims of crime in the contemporary „offender-oriented? Criminal
Justice System. A crime victim is an unfortunate recipient of „harm?,
Toss? or injury.
Victim
is a real sufferer for no fault of his. The prime responsibility of a State is
to protect limb, life and property of
its subjects and a crime victim suffers because of the State?s failure in protecting his limb, life and property,
as the case may be. Therefore, the State must be equally „fair? and „just? to a crime victim by designing a comprehensive scheme
for rendering justice
to him.
Victim
The
research work will focus on the victims of crime particularly women and
children. The legal term „the
complainant? is used in the Criminal Procedure Code. Before the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008,
the word „victim? was not defined in the Code.
By this amendment Section 2(wa) has
been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure and under this section
the term “Victim” has been defined.
Types of Victims –
The
victim is a person who suffers from many types of different crimes which are
punishable or any kind of torts or
mischief made with him. There are many crimes related to women and children in India. Most of the crimes are
not even reported due to which the number of
registered cases goes down. The main crimes that are caused against
women are Dowry Death, Female Foeticide,
Illegal Abortions, Acid Attacks, Rape, Sexual Exploitation for giving some favour in
the offices, Blackmailing by Nude Photos,
Videos etc.
The
children who are not very strong to resist the attacker or the criminal become
the victims of the attacks or crimes.
Many small children don?t know that the person is a good person or a
bad person. The percentage of the criminals in the child offences is very much
considering the relation with the
children. In most of the cases, the attacker or the criminal is the very close relative or even blood relatives of
the victims.
In
the rape cases of small girls, the victims don?t even understand that the
criminal is her relative, brother,
father, uncle, etc. Because they are still not that mature to understand the relationship and what the criminal is
doing with them. In the cases of women, due to the very bad system of testing for rape, publicity of the news, media attention, harassment by the police
while reporting the case, harassment by the medical officers, etc. such women
do not register any cases.
Talking
about the types of victims in every different cases, the behavior of each
victim changes as per the gravity of
the crime happened with them. Some of the victims who are young tend to fight back the criminal in
the Court of Law but on the other hand some victims are very vulnerable, they do not tend to fight back in the Court
of Law. Most of them are women and
children who also don?t have that much knowledge to fight a case. Many of the victims are very poor and so they don?t
get the proper legal help from the Advocates to fight their cases. Some are very illiterate due to which they do not
file any cases against the criminals and that?s why the criminals
roam around easily and try to do more and more crimes
than before without any fear
of law and punishment.
The attitude of Police and Judiciary
towards women
and child victims –
When we talk about the women or child victims in any cases registered, the police in India are or behave very carelessly and there
is no sense of showing humanity to the victims of the case in the Police Station when they come to register the case against anyone who
did to them. The process of checking
in Medical that the woman is a real victim of the crime or just faking it, is the very bad process and due
to which many women back out from registering the cases because it is more painful and tragic than the
crime happened with them.
In
the case of child victims, the Police had to take help of the Child Counselors
to talk with the children about the
incident and gather more information about it. Many a times the children
can?t give proper information to the Police at first due to the trauma and fear
of the incident. So the Police take
the help of such counselors to calm them down and gather more information. In the cases of girls, they
have to take the help of Female Counselor. But the current condition is not very good and acceptable. In most of
the cases, the police tend to ignore
such cases and don?t register them. This is because of the Paternal Mentality
or due to the influence of any
powerful leader or corporator. Because they have to work as per their instructions and if they don?t obey their
orders, they get transferred easily and quickly to a very remote place.
Talking
about the Judiciary in India, their work is to identify the culprit from the
evidences and merits of the case in
front of them. In the cases of children, there are some legal problems that need to be proved such as the age
of the victims and to admit their statements against the culprit. So the question arises that how much of the statement
should be taken into consideration? So, this causes too many problems and delay in the case to be solved. Then comes the appeals by the accused
in Higher Courts to get out. This also mentally and physically harasses the victims and their
families. Sometimes they also get
threats to take back the cases or
sometimes they are offered a huge amount of money to compromise the case.
So,
in many cases the victims take money and take back the cases while in the
Police Station or sometimes
in the Courts by giving hostile statements, changing or manipulating the witness in the
cases, etc. The Judiciary should have a good vision to identify the problem in the case and prioritize the cases of
children and offences against women to give proper justice to them in a very less time. Because
most of the cases go on running for 8-10 years or above but they still don?t get justice.
About Victimology
Generally
the whole attention is paid by the crime investigators and the courts on the criminals.
They are concerned with the victim of
the crime only for detection of the
crime and to substantiate or falsify
the prosecution story. The suspect is arrested, brought before the court, the victim assists the prosecution
as a witness of the crime. The sentence
or acquittal as the case may be depends
on the evidence.
The
concept of criminal amelioration has widened the area of criminal reforms e.g.
release of the offenders on probation
or parole and other reformative methods are being applied to the criminals to make them fit to live in the
society. Criminology is mainly concerned with the criminals their social backgrounds, the causes of criminality,
methods of punishment and crime
prevention etc.
Classification of Victimology
In the backdrop of above discussion[3] victimology can broadly classified in two main categories, Penal Victimology and General Victimology.
Penal Victimology
The
interests of first victimologists Hentig, Mendelsohn and Wolfgang continue to
be one of the main streams within victimology today. This stream has been called penal victimology as contrasted to general victimology. For
the adherents of penal victimology the scope of the field is defined by the criminal law: victimology studies the
victims of incidents defined as criminal by law. The research agenda of this victimological stream combines issues concerning
the causation of crimes and those concerning the victim?s role in the criminal proceedings.
Penal victimology looks at the dynamic interplay
between victim and offender. An appropriate,
alternative name for this stream would be interaction!st victimology. The most important
political criticism leveled
against this type of victimology is that it provides arguments
for blaming victims
for their fate. In later victimological publications by Mendelsohn and
others the involvement of the victim in the commission of the crime is analyzed
to explain the dynamics of criminal behavior without any intent to inculcate
the victim. It cannot be denied,
however, that the victimological notion of victim-precipitation can be exploited by others for the purpose of victim blaming.
Researchers
who study the role played by the victim in the dynamics resulting in the crime
as well as in the ensuing legal conflict will typically hold discriminate opinions
on the punishment of the offender. In some cases the victim might
indeed have to share part of the blame.
In other cases the victim has an interest in being reconciled with the
offender. In penal victimology
there is an intrinsic interest in non punitive solutions to criminal incidents
(such as mediation) which, at least
in theory, empower both victims and offenders. For the pioneers in victimology, offenders and victims are
equally deserving of humanitarian concerns. Since concern for the offenders
does not conflict with concern for
the victim there is every reason to
preserve this tradition.
This even-handedness is perhaps less justified, though,
with regard to crimes committed in the context
of structural power inequalities. Researchers who come to victimology from a gender-equality perspective have made main stream victimologists more sensitive to gender issues
and to power inequalities generally. In one important
respect the new generation of victimologists focusing
on gender-issues, seems to be in full agreement with the pioneers of penal victimology. According
to both, victims must not be studied in purely medical terms.
Criminal victimization is not a clinical phenomenon. The key to a better
understanding of the problems of crime victims is that they have been wronged by another human being and that their shattered
sense of justice
must be repaired. Victims must not only be given therapeutic help. They must also be rendered justice.
General Victimology
The
second main stream of victimology is usually called general victimology. Like
penal victimology, this stream was also first explicitly described
by the aforementioned Mendelsohn. In one of his later post-war publications (1956), Mendelsohn advocated
a general study of what he
now called “victimity”, with a view to reducing it by prevention and victim assistance. In later papers he
called for the establishment of victims? clinics. The assistance for victims should be based on a specific personal,
social and cultural rehabilitation theory.
Mendelsohn ?s interest no longer lay
with crime and its prevention, but with the prevention and alleviation of “victimity” in a wide sense.
The
subjects of study should not only include victims of crime and abuse of power
but should also include
victims of accidents, natural
disasters and others
acts of God.
He advocated the development of general victimology as a discipline in its own right, independent of criminology or criminal
law, which would assist governments in minimizing human suffering.
Position of Victim
in Criminal Proceedings
Definitions
A Victim is defined[4] as a
person who has suffered harm, either physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or violation of
their fundamental rights, through acts
or omissions considered to be violative of Indian criminal laws including those
laws that prescribe criminal abuse of
power.
The development of organized society, according to the idealized view, is regarded as a continuous development of order out of chaos. According to this
view, primitive man could rely only
on himself for defence and vengeance. Society brought with it rules of conduct, enforced when necessary by some figure of
authority. In particular, certain forms of conduct (such as taking property belonging to another, causing another
person bodily injury) were condemned,
and various forms of punishment awaited the offender. This mechanism of criminal justice was seen to deter crime, thus providing potential
victims with the best form of
protection.
If,
despite this deterrence, an offence did take place, it was no longer up to the
victim to see that the offender was “brought to justice” he was to turn to the agents of
the central authority, who
would perform this service for the victim. Indeed, some commentators have
argued that the position
of the victim may have retrograded during the most recent period of development. The development of the
position of the victim is unavoidably tied to the over- all development of the criminal
justice system, and of society
in general. One of the predominant trends in this has been differentiation, specialization and stratification, a development
from a “Gemeinschaft” society to a “Gesellschaft” society. In the process of social control, this entails a shift from
a system where every person had an equal potential for exercising social control (subject, of course, to such factors
as strength and mental abilities) to a concentration of control functions in
the hands of agencies and individuals specifically entrusted with this task.
This
view of development in effect draws two stereotypes, and suggests that one has
replaced the other. According to
the stereotype of community law, the victim or perhaps the immediate circle of the victim decides on
what measures to undertake on the basis of an offence.
This might include ignoring the offence entirely (for example when the
offender is obviously more powerful), exacting private or collective vengeance, or entering into informal negotiations on a possible settlement.
The Future
of Victimology
When victimologists from around the globe[5]
gather to discuss the issues mentioned, it is clear that the presentation of their research
findings and their insights will be relevant
for colleagues from all
continents. There are some prominent international protocols concerning the rights of victims of crime and abuse of power.
Victimology
is rapidly moving forward and it has attracted many academics and practitioners from different backgrounds and with
widely diverging interests. The resulting avalanche of publications in this field plainly asks for some analysis. What
are the most important issues which
are likely to dominate victimological debate in the next decade? Which
fundamental choices need to be made when we want to preserve
(or to establish?) some coherence in victimology as a respectable
academic discipline? Some inferences
will be drawn from the content
of the preceding parts of the present
contribution.
It seems axiomatic that the future
of victimology will influence, and be influenced by, developments in the justice
system. Because of this, the future of victimology will largely depend
on the extent to which the paradigm
of "restorative justice" is accepted and implemented.
Societies undergo perpetual change. Today's society is undergoing rapid and radical
transformation. Justice paradigms have to
change with social evolution in order to remain in harmony with prevailing belief
systems and to take stock of whatever
advances and discoveries are achieved in the fields of criminology and penology.
The
archaic goals of expiation and atonement will not be in harmony with the
realities and beliefs of the secular,
post-industrial society of the 21st century. In modem secular societies the notion of risk and harm are gradually
replacing those of evil, wickedness, malice, and are bound to become
central concepts in the social
and criminal policies
of the future.
Future
policies of crime control will be largely based on risk assessment, risk
management, risk coverage,
risk reduction, and risk prevention. The measurement of harm: physical,
material, and mental, will likely become the central component of social
reaction to crime. The primary aims
of such a response will be redress,
reparation and compensation. All harmful
actions will generate an obligation to redress coupled with endeavors to
prevent their future occurrence.
This
will be the era of restorative justice.[6] Such
a paradigm shift will have a profound impact
on victimology of the future. In the past two decades, attempts to exploit the
cause of crime victims for political
gain, and conservatives' efforts to sell the policies of law and order under the pretext of doing justice to
those victimized by crime often required the portrayal of victims as vengeful, vindictive, even
bloodthirsty. Those claiming to represent and to speak on behalf of
victims propagated the erroneous view that concern for crime victims invariably requires
harsh, punitive justice
policies. While the distress of some victims
may be so overwhelming that they will demand the
harshest possible penalty for their victimizer, this could hardly be said of the majority of victims
of crime.
Contribution of Family, Friends
and Neighbours
When someone is victimized, they may have a variety of needs, ranging
from serious and immediate issues
such as healing injuries sustained in the commission of a violent crime to lesser issues such as needing someone to
watch the kids while the victim goes down to the police station or courthouse. Meeting
many victim needs takes specialized knowledge; providing civil legal assistance
to help a domestic violence
victim file for divorce or helping a victim fill out an application for
monetary compensation from the state, for these kinds of needs, victims turn to social service programs.
But
for a variety of other needs, ranging from borrowing money to getting a broken door fixed to just needing someone to talk to,
victims most frequently turn to family, friend and neighbors. Research studies have shown that victims need many
different forms of assistance. Some needs, can only be met by service
programs: Victims filing claims for state compensation or domestic violence victims
needing to gain child custody or alter the terms of visitation need
help from trained professionals.
Social support
A considerable body of research
has demonstrated a link between
social support and adaptation
to adverse life events, such as illness, depression, victimization and
bereavement. For example, some
studies have shown that positive social support following life stressors can
maintain and enhance self-esteem. Evidence also suggest that the support of
family and friends is vital to the
adjustment of crime victims. In Indian context when a person becomes the victim of a crime, people hesitate to
help the victim as they do not want to involve
themselves in unnecessary questioning of police.
Police call them again and again for interrogation. After
that police produced them in the court as a prosecution witness.
They
are harassed by the offenders as in India there is no law for the protection of
witnesses. In all these proceedings
they waste their precious time, money and sometimes their life. Because of patriarchial system of society
or because of gender discrimination, in offences against the women, most of the time people blame the woman
victim for the victimization. That is
why woman victims afraid to lodge a complaint against the offenders.
Blameworthy attitude of the society
increases the traumatic stress of the woman victim of the crime.
Victimology: Legislative Framework in India
“Trials
involve adversaries and adversity, defeats and victories, winners and
losers....... it is the business of
defence to cast doubt on those allegations and discredit witnesses and their evidence... it is to make witnesses appear
so inconsistent, forgetful muddled,
spiteful or greedy that their words
can?t be safely believed. Victims and defendants, prosecution and defence witnesses alike face accusations of mendacity, impropriety and malice.
Victims
who come to court supposing that a trial will be an assertion of their wrongs
will discover that it is their
probity that is at issue as well. In a contested trial, they will almost certainly be exposed to a bruising
interrogation in which • AD they are
the injured party. At best they will be the alleged
victim.”
The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Code of Criminal
Procedure is the first and probably the oldest legislation in India to deal
with the concept of compensation to the victims of crime. Though the
victimological aspect under the Code
is of limited purport and is confined to compensation only but it has definitely proved the way for improving
the principles of compensatory jurisprudence. The Code of Criminal Procedure is based on the principle of
presumption of innocence though there are various provisions
in the Criminal Procedure Code for providing
justice to victims
of crime. But these provisions are scattered all over the Criminal Procedure Code.
In
pursuance of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 41st
report a comprehensive scheme for
compensation to the victims of crime has been made in section 357 and
section 357A of Criminal Procedure Code. Besides these two sections, other
sections like 358, 359, 237, 250
also deal with compensation to victims of crime. Other provisions which are important from the aspect of
Victimology are proviso to section 24(8), Sections 320, 327, 378, 397, 473, 482, 437(5), and 439(2).
Rights And Status
Of Victims Of Crime With Special
Focus On Women And Children
"Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their
dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt
redress, as provided
for by national legislation, for the harm they have suffered." Strange and ironical as it may sound, the administration of criminal justice is not
much concerned with the victims of crime except that in a few cases some marginal action is possible to render
limited or token help to the victims. The
entire focus of the criminal justice system is on the offender; to punish him
or to seek his reformation and rehabilitation with all the resources and
goodwill available through the courts and other governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Efforts are made to understand his personality and the
individual and social factors which might have contributed to his criminal
behavior.
Rights of Victims of Crime
in Criminal Justice
System
The
study of existing legal framework in relation to rights of victims of crime
reveals that except in the area of
providing compensation, very little has been done either statutorily or through schemes to address the entire
range of problems faced by victims of crime. No doubt in an adversial system, each attempt is made to deliver justice
from the point of view of an accused.
Indian system of criminal justice is accused oriented. The rights of victims of
crime are often overlooked. Unlike the accused,
victims have virtually
no rights in criminal proceedings and proceedings are supposedly conducted on their behalf by
State agencies.
Right from the beginning
of a trial till the final conclusion, attempts are made to benefit the accused, sometimes even at the cost of victim?s
sentiments. Criminal justice
system though pro-accused, gives certain rights to the
victims of crime also. But these rights are scattered in various enactments such as Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence
Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Because of less awareness,
most of these rights remain
unexercised.
From Retribution to Restitution
Retribution
is a socially popular theory of punishment and it is closer to social reaction
to crime. Retribution seeks to right
the balance by lowering the offender to the
level to which the victim has been
reduced. It tries to defeat the wrongdoer, annulling his or her claim to superiority and confirming the victim?s
sense of worth. Restitution, on the other hand,[7] seeks to raise the victim to his or her previous
level. The word “restitution” connotes
restoring or compensating the
victim for his loss. The original conception of restitution as a criminal remedy was that of
forcing the criminal to yield up the fruits of his crime.
It
has been observed that this form of criminal restitution is sanctioned not only
by history but also by its close
relationship to the retributive and deterrent purposes of criminal punishment. Restitution is the term applied when the
offender makes amends to his victim in a criminal offence by paying a sum of money or by service. Its benefits are
twofold - the offender is made more
responsible for the crime and the victim receives attention and benefit
directly from the offender. It gives
an opportunity to both the victim and the offender to feel that a wrong is
being righted. When restitution involves service to the community, the whole society
receives reparation from the offender.
Restitution is a positive measure
and particularly appropriate for use in respect of juvenile offenders.
It
traces its origin to the Middle Ages and is more penal than compensation paid
by the State since it does not merely
offset the victim?s losses but makes the offender pay for them. The rationale
for the restitution programme is that the offender is made to recognize his responsibility
to the victim, it maintains the dignity of the offender unlike imprisonment, it saves the society and the offender from the deleterious effect of incarceration,
and above all, it contributes to a sense of justice.
Long
prison sentences stifle all hope of reform. The prison permeates the inmate, and when he is finally released he is almost helpless to make an adequate
adjustment to free society. As Marshall B. Clinard
and Daniel J. Abbott opined,
fines and imprisonment are penalties collected by an impersonal State and thus
do little to restore the damage or loss caused to the victim or the victim?s family. Compensation[8] or
restitution to victim has particular merit as a substitute for both fine and imprisonment. For over a century, opinion has been
developing in favour of restitution to the
victim or the victim?s family by order of the
criminal court.
Beyond Restitution; Restoring Victims
The
proponents of restitution place too much emphasis on financial restitution and
reparation of material damage. Such
emphasis is due to an inadequate understanding
of the way in which crime harms
people and of what the offender can do to help to restore the victim to the material,
psychological and relational
state they were in before the
crime was committed. But according
to proponents of restorative justice, the main reason crime is wrong and
requires some response is not because it is an offence against
society, but because it is „a violation of a person
by another person?.
It
is not denied that„ the effects of crime ripple out touching many others? and
that society also has a legitimate interest in how the crime
is dealth with,
but it is asserted that these”
public dimensions? should not be the starting point for consideration of what
to do about a crime. Rather
our starting point should be the fact that one person has been harmed
by the wrongful actions of another. That in a great many cases offenders
will not be able to repair or make adequate
compensation for all the material
harm they caused.
However, by putting
themselves out to repair what they can, they can help heal the
psychological and relational damage
which they cause.
But
restitution, despite its symbolic value, is not on its own sufficient to heal
the wounds of crime. Offenders
can and must do more.
In particular, proponents of restorative justice
emphasised the importance to victims of offenders showing remorse and
shame and offering genuine apologies
for their crime. Offenders must also be prepared to meet face to face with their victims, in a safe atmosphere, to
explain their act and to answer the victim?s questions about why they were victimized and other matters. A mediation
meeting with offenders can also play
a role in reducing the victim?s fear and sense of powerlessness, since it
allows them to see the offenders as
an ordinary vulnerable person rather than the threatening, all-powerful figure which, in line with public stereotypes, they often imagine criminals
to be.
Restorative Justice:
There
is the alternative approach which is aimed at moving away from the punishment
of the offender towards restoring the
harm done to the victim and the community and often extends to rehabilitation and reintegration of the
offender. At present time a debate is developing on restorative Justice, which seeks to move away from conventionality, into new areas of mediation and involvement of victim and offenders. “Victim-offender Mediation” is
one device employed by restorative
justice. It involves a structured meeting between victim and offender,
which hopes to convey to the offender
that there is human consequence to the crime,
while restoring a sense of control and resolution to the
victim.
Therefore
this approach offers new ways of making offenders face up to their crimes and
it is potentially a very hopeful
development. Recently interest towards restoration, rehabilitation, restitution of crime victims has been
increased. There is a link between this new interest in customary and traditional legal systems in the former colonized countries
and the development of new approaches to justice which the west, called
“restorative justice” or “transformative”
or “transactional” justice.
Archbishop Desmond
Tutu[9] speaking about South African
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, expressed the idea behind this concept: —said,” But
you see , the other thing is that, I
think , lurking behind your question, is the concept of justice. Now you say,
everybody has got to be punished.
Your concept of what constitutes justice is retributive justice. Now that?s not the only kind of justice. We
believe that there is restorative justice because you see, the application is heard in an open
hearing not behind the closed doors.....And that public appearance constitutes a public humiliation which is If you are looking for punitiveness.. a punishment. But we didn?t
think that was where we wanted to end.
In practice this new approach to justice puts emphasis on the
relationship between the victim of
crime and the perpetrator and looks for a solution that gives some satisfaction to the victims through compensation, an apology
some act of restitution, and tries to influence the wrong that has been
done.
Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice
provides an entirely
different way of thinking about crime and victimizations. Under previous criminal
justice paradigms the state was viewed-as the primary
victim of criminal acts, and victims and offenders played passive roles.
Restorative justice recognizes crime
as first and foremost being directed against individual people. It assumes that those most affected by crime
should have the opportunity to become actively
involved in resolving
the conflict. The emphasis is on restoration of losses, allowing
offenders to take direct responsibility
for their actions, and assisting
victims in moving beyond
their sense of vulnerability and achieving some closure.
These
goals stand in sharp contrast to those of traditional paradigms, which focused
on past criminal behavior through
ever-increasing level of punishment.
Restorative
justice attempts to draw upon the strength of both, offender and victim, rather than focusing upon their deficits. While denouncing criminal
behavior, Restorative Justice emphasizes
the need to treat offenders with respect and to reintegrate them into the
larger community in ways
that can lead to lawful behavior.
Conclusion –
In
this research article, we have studied that the process and quality of
Victimology should be changed in
some way so as to suit the victims and not the accused. The vision of the
Judiciary should be impartial and they should quickly identify
the problem in the case of the women and children. The behavior of the Police
needs correction because they don?t care about the conditions of the victims and when it comes to children, special
care should be taken while getting information about the incident.
When
it comes to Victimology and the benefits to the victims, the government
provides compensation, care homes for
the victims, etc. while when it comes to children, it provides foster care institutions, special
education centers, counseling centers, hospital and medical care, schools,
etc. Then the accused gets the punishment as per law.
But
apart from this, the government needs to improve the working of the Police and
the Judiciary so that the victims don?t feel more depressed while going to register the cases.
[1] Siddique,
Ahmad—Criminology : Problems and Perspectives (Eastern Book Company) 2005 p.545
[2] Makkar,S.P.Singh
and Friday Paul : Global Perspectives in Victimology (An endeavor to define
Victimology)
[6] Halsbury’s Law of England
4th edition 2006 Reissue 11(4), Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, Lexix Nexix, Butterworths Lord Mackay of clashfem
[7] Zehr, Howard.( 1990) Changing
Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Scottdale, PA:Herald Press) p. 67
[8] Crime in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective (1973), P.269:
[9] Archbishop Desmond Tutu
is Noble Peace Prize Winner of
1984, He is Human Rights Activist and hero of South African
anti-aparthied struggle.Recently he has been awarded Gandhi Peace Prize of 2005 on 31 January,2007 by The President.A.P.J Abdul Kalam towards adding India’s voice to the global
recognition of Gandhiism.
Article Information
IMPORTANCE OF VICTIMOLOGY IN SPECIAL REFERENCE WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN INDIA.
Authors: RAJEEV SHIRISHKUMAR GANDHI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/22
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.