LLM II SEMESTER

LL.M. 201B: Victimology

UNIT-I

Victimology: Meaning, Nature and ScopeMeaning:

Victimology may be defined as the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between the victims
and the criminal justice system; that is, the police and courts, and correctional officials. It also includes connections between victims and other social groups and
institutions, such as the media, businesses and social movements.[Paranjape, Dr. N.V., Criminology and Penology with Victimology, 15th Ed., Central Law Publications
Ltd., Allahabad, 2011, p. 663]

In a narrow sense, victimology is empirical, factual study of victims of crime and as such is closely related to criminology and thus maybe regarded as a part of the
general problem of crime.

In broader sense, victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims, victimization and the efforts of society to perverse the rights of the victim. Hence, it is
composed of knowledge drawn from such fields as criminology, law, medicine, psychology, social work, politics, education and public administration.[
Randhawa, supra note 1, p. 42]

The term ‘victim’ in general parlance refers to all those who experience injury, loss or hardship due to any cause and one of such causes maybe crime. Therefore,
victimology may be defined as a study of people who experience injury or hardship due to any cause. It involves study of victim characteristics and maybe called
‘victim profiling’.

Some Definitions:

Schultz (1970)-“Victimology is the study of degree of and type of participation of the victim in the genesis or development of the offences and an evaluation of what is just
and proper for the victim’s welfare.”

Drapkin and Viano (1974)-“Victimology is the branch of criminology which primarily studies the victims of crime and everything that is connected with such a
victim.”[ Randhawa, supra note 1, p. 43]

Victimology has thus emerged as a branch of criminology dealing exclusively dealing exclusively with the victims of crime who need to be treated with compassion
and rendered compensation and assistance under the criminal justice system.

 Nature of Victimology:
 Whether victimology is part of criminology?

There is a constant strife on this topic. According to Kirchhoff, “there is a criminology that calls itself victimology when analyzing problems from a victim’s
perspective.” But victimology is not criminological victimology. Historically, however, victimology bloomed in criminology but victimologists started asking different
questions and they developed different strata of interests and explanations. Though victimology has close connection to the concept of crime, the focus of victimology
is the victim and not the whole social structure and role of crime and criminal law in it. Hence, victimology is now evolved into an independent subject matter of study.
[ Randhawa, supra note 1, pp. 37-38]

 The Science of victimology

In the first symposium of Victimology held in Jerusalem it was stated that, “Victimology 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 police and courts and the correctional officials, and the connection
between victims and other societal groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses and social movements.[ Randhawa, supra note 1, pp. 37-38]

Victimology as a science cannot be isolated from reality, even difficult realities. Science needs to go beyond the purely observable ‘fact’ of victimization. Therefore,
victimology as a science requires an analysis and interpretation of victimization.

 Whether victimology is science or service?

The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice in 2000 declared that “We establish 2000 as a target date for states to review their relevant practices, to develop further
victim support services and awareness campaigns on the rights of victims and to consider establishment of funds for the victims, in addition to developing and
implementing witness protection policies.”[ Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the challenges of the Twenty-First Century , General Assembly
Resolution A/55/593, 17.01.2001, Para 21] Thus, victimology is also a service.

 Whether victimology is blaming the victim?

 One aspect of victimology is blaming the victim for his own plight. However, most victimologists reject theories of “victim blaming”. They simply explore the process
of victimization with the goal of understanding it and preventing it.

Scope of Victimology

The victim is the forgotten party in the criminal justice system. It would be factually wrong if this type of criticism would still be maintained today.[ Lehner- Zimmerer,
Michaela, Future Challenges of International Victimology, African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, Volume 4, No. 2, April 2011, p. 14 ( Available
at:http://www.umes.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=33904 )] Victimology has come of age. Victims, their needs and their rights, are being consistently
acknowledged in words, if not in deeds.

1. Victimology is study of crime from victim’s point of view:

Victimology is study of crime from victim’s point of view. After the Second World War the plight of victims was seriously considered by many criminologists in
Europe. B. Mendelsohn developed this branch of criminology as there was growing concern for the plight of victims of all crime. The First International Conference on
Victimology under the auspices United Nations was held in Jerusalem in the year 1973 followed by another conference in Boston in 1976. There are many seminars
and studies on victimology at the regional, national and international level highlighting the problems of victims, legal position of victims in criminal proceedings,
compensation for victims.

2. Victimology analysis the victim-offender relations and the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system:

The process of being a victim involves two dimensions, individual and societal. It is therefore incumbent upon victimology to develop theoretical models that cut
across levels of analysis and which incorporate the dynamics of normal social intercourse as a basis of understanding how victims cope and in addressing victim
needs. There are three interfacing roles:

 Victim
 Persecutor
 Rescuer

The victim requires a ‘persecutor’ the one who victimizes and the process is complete when there is a ‘rescuer’, one who saves the persecutor.

3. Victim of abuse of power:

Term ‘victim of abuse of power’ is such a broad and ambiguous concept that sometimes it is argued that this concept includes, for example, abuse of power between
States or between races, and even economic exploitation of employees and consumers by large enterprises. An important object of the criminal justice system is to
ensure justice to the victims, yet he/she is not given any substantial right, not even to participate in the criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal, training and
education in victimology by trained professionals of criminal justice will help.

‘Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’ (UN, 1985) also defines the victims of abuse of power like the victims of
crime. The suffering through impairment of fundamental rights is included. The Declaration makes it clear that far more victimization occurs as a result of the actions
of governments and business institutions than ever arises from what are defined as crimes under national laws.[ Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims
of Crime and Abuse of Power (UN, 1985)]

4. Victimology is study of restitution and compensation of the damages caused to the victim by the perpetrator of crime:

Modern state is a welfare state in which the welfare of its citizens is of paramount importance. With new developments in the field of victimology, the victims of
crime have assumed a significant role. Now, efforts are made to provide restitution to the victims. Compensation is given with the object of making good the loss
sustained by the victims or the legal representatives of the deceased.

5. Victimology is the study of Victimological clinic:

If we look at clinical victimological work, the treatment of victims, we have not only to look at hospitals; we have to look at whole array of victim assistance
organizations who are actively working to alleviate the burden of victimization.

Thus, it is important to understand:

 Victim’s crime-related mental health problems

 What aspects of the criminal justice system process are stressful to victims?
 What can be done to help victims with their crime-related health problems and stress regarding the criminal justice system?

UNIT-II

Concept of Victim
 The UN Convention on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power defines the victims in Article 1 as

“(1) ‘Victims’ means natural persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic
loss or violations of fundamental rights in relation to victimizations identified under ‘scope’.

(2) A person is a victim regardless of whether the crime is reported to the police, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or
convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and victim. The term ‘victim’ also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or
dependents of the direct victims and persons who have suffered in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.”[ Available
at: http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org/publications/Draft%20Convention.pdf]

In Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “Victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for
which the accused person has been charged and the expression victim includes his or her guardian or legal heir.” [ Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 [Inserted by Amendment Act of 2009 Act 5 of 2009)]

Classification of Victim:

(i) Primary Victim–

Any person, group or entity who has suffered injury, harm or loss due to illegal activity of someone is called a primary victim. The harm may be physical, psychological
or financial.

(ii) Secondary Victim–

There may also be secondary victim who suffer injury or harm as a result of injury or harm to the primary victim.

(iii) Tertiary Victim–

Tertiary victim are those who experience harm or injury due to the criminal act of the offender. He is another person besides the immediate victim, who is victimized
as a result of the perpetrator’s action.

Example, in case of rape, the woman raped is the primary victim, while a child, if born out of such rape, is the secondary victim because he/she suffers from lack of
paternity. But the general shame and disgrace which the entire family of the raped victim has to suffer at the hands of the society and the system makes them tertiary
victims. However, it cannot be assumed that secondary and tertiary victims are less traumatized than the primary victims.

UNIT-III

Impact of Victimization:

The impact of crime on victim may be physical, financial or psychological.

 Physical Impact:

The victim is likely to experience a number of physical reactions to crime to which he has fallen a victim. The victim may also suffer from mental trauma. Another
significant impact on the victim is physical injury which may be apparent and immediate or may be realized by the victim at a later stage.

 Financial Impact:

The financial impact of crime on the victim may be in any one or more of the following forms:

1. Costs and expenses incurred in medical treatment for physical injuries

2. Damages to property or articles in possession
3. Litigation cost incurred in fighting against the crime and criminal, i.e. the perpetrator
4. Financial suffering due to loss of earnings
5. Funeral or burial expenses, if any.

 Psychological Impact:

Where the victim is confronted with the crime perpetrator immediate reaction will be anger or fear depending on his strength and capacity to face the misfortune.
Shock and mental trauma follow immediately after the crime has been committed, for example, the Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The psychological impact of victimization is clearly reflected in the behavioural responses of the crime victim, which may include increased alcoholism, excessive use
of drugs, avoidance of social relationships and social withdrawal, etc. This is very much true in case of rape victims when people blame her for having walked alone or
dressed provocatively.

There may, however, be some victims who are able to shed aside their distress and shock and return to normal life.
 IMPACT OF CRIME

The physical and financial impact of victimization

At the time of a crime, or upon discovering that a crime has occurred, victims are likely to experience a number of physical reactions to the event. These may include
an increase in the adrenalin in the body, increased heart rate, hyperventilation, shaking, tears, numbness, a feeling of being frozen or experiencing events in slow
motion, dryness of the mouth, enhancement of particular senses, such as smell, and a "fight or flight" response. It is common for people to lose control over their
bowel movements. Some of these physical reactions may not occur until after the danger has passed. They may recur at a later stage when the memory of the crime
returns.

After the crime, victims may suffer a range of physical effects, including insomnia, appetite disturbance, lethargy, headaches, muscle tension, nausea and decreased
libido. Such reactions may persist for some time after the crime has occurred.

Physical injuries resulting from victimization may not always be immediately apparent. This may be particularly true in cases of domestic violence where the injuries
occur on parts of the body that are normally clothed.

Facial injuries are by far the most frequent in other forms of assault. Victims may suffer a range of physical damage, including abrasions and bruises, broken nose,
cheekbone or jawbone and damage to or loss of teeth. Other injuries will be associated with assaults involving knives or firearms.

Physical injuries may be a permanent effect of crime and there is evidence that this has a negative effect on long-term psychological recovery, since the physical scars
serve as a constant reminder of the crime. Cultural, gender and occupational factors may affect the individual's reaction to permanent scarring or disability, as will the
reaction of others.

The financial impact of crime is less well documented. Victims may incur costs in the following ways:

 Repairing property or replacing possessions,

 Installing security measures,
 Accessing health services,
 Participating in the criminal justice process, for example, attending the trial,
 Obtaining professional counselling to come to terms with the emotional impact,
 Taking time off work or from other income-generating activities,
 Funeral or burial expenses.

In some cases, victims may feel a need to move, a process likely to entail financial costs. As a result of the crime, the value of property may decrease.

In the long term, crime can adversely impact the victim's employment. The victim may find it impossible to return to work or their work performance may be
adversely affected, resulting in demotion, loss of pay and possibly dismissal. This is particularly likely where the crime occurred at work, as it may be difficult for the
victim to avoid people or situations that led to the initial victimization.

The marital and other relationships of crime victims are also likely to be affected and this may have a significant effect on the family's financial position.

Research shows that the shock waves from victimization touch not only the victim but also the victim's immediate family and relatives, neighbours and acquaintances.
This holds true for the emotional as well as the financial consequences, and the effects can endure for years or even a lifetime. In the case of genocide, child abuse,
exposure to violence and abuse of power, the effects can be passed on from one generation to the next. While this is to be expected in connection with offences such as
murder, torture and rape, the crimes of assault, robbery and burglary can also leave lasting feelings of powerlessness, insecurity, anger and fear. Not only individuals
but also communities and organizations can be victimized, leading to their deterioration over time as confidence ebbs, fear increases and the economic burden of
victimization becomes insupportable.

The effects of victimization strike particularly hard at the poor, the powerless, the disabled and the socially isolated. Research shows that those already affected by
prior victimization are particularly susceptible to subsequent victimization by the same or other forms of crime. These repeat victims are often found in many
countries to reside in communities with high crime levels and are also a common phenomenon during times of war.

As for the impact of abuse of power, during recent years armed conflict has claimed innumerable victims, largely among civilian populations, with women and
children often the primary targets. Tribal warfare, ethnic strife and other fratricidal conflicts, mass rapes, kidnappings or expulsions, "ethnic cleansing", torture,
arbitrary detention and killings have greatly added to the human toll. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that at the beginning
of 1996 there were approximately 13.2 million refugees, 3.4 million returnees, 4.6 million internally displaced persons and 4.8 million victims of armed conflict
worldwide.

The use of child soldiers (10 years of age or even younger) in some places, child bondage and new forms of slavery, the sale and sexual exploitation of children, also in
connection with "sex tourism", and the kidnapping and murder of street children have further increased the scale of victimization. It is estimated by the United
Nations Children's Fund that during this last decade some 1.5 million children have been killed in armed conflicts, another 4 million children have been disabled,
maimed, blinded or brain-damaged, and many more have been psychologically traumatized. At least 5 million children have been uprooted from their communities;
between 100 million and 200 million children are being used in exploitative forms of labour; and many are living and working in the streets, where they have often
been victims of unscrupulous operatives and vigilante killings.

Their very status makes refugees and internally displaced persons easy prey for abuse and they are often subject to secondary victimization. This is the case, for
example, with violence against migrant workers,1 who may become victims of physical abuse and mental and sexual harassment by employers, intermediaries or the
police, quite apart from being subjected to economic servitude. Refugees and migrants have also become targets of "hate crimes" and exploitative practice.
 B. Psychological injury and social cost

Crime is usually experienced as more serious than an accident or similar misfortune. It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that loss and injury have been caused
by the deliberate act of another human being. At the same time, it is evident from research and experience that it is impossible to predict how an individual will
respond to a particular crime.

One way of conceptualizing common reactions to crime is as a process with four stages. The initial reaction may include shock, fear, anger, helplessness, disbelief and
guilt. Such reactions are well documented in the immediate aftermath of a crime. Some of these reactions may recur at a later stage as well, for example, when
attending a trial or going to hospital for medical treatment. Anger is a reaction that some victims and helpers find difficult to deal with. It may be directed at other
victims, helpers, bystanders, organizations and also at oneself. Among some groups and in some cultures there may be a feeling that it is wrong to express anger even
when it is strongly felt. There may be pressure on victims to control their emotions.

These initial reactions may be followed by a period of disorganization, which may manifest itself in psychological effects such as distressing thoughts about the event,
nightmares, depression, guilt, fear and a loss of confidence and esteem. Life can seem to slow down and lose its meaning. Previously held beliefs and faiths may no
longer provide comfort. Behavioural responses might include increased alcohol or substance abuse, fragmentation of social relationships, avoidance of people and
situations associated with the crime and social withdrawal.

For many people, there then follows a period of reconstruction and acceptance, which leads to normalization or adjustment. The early stages of coming to terms with
crime are often characterized by retrospective thinking, where victims long for everything to be as it was before and to turn the clock back. This crucial stage in
recovery involves victims' accepting fully the reality of what has happened. Cognitive restructuring may be required, in which victims reinterpret their experience to
ameliorate the effects of the crime and possibly find an explanation for what has happened or evaluate the event as leading to personal growth.

The boundaries between these different stages are never as clear-cut as suggested here and the divisions are intended as an aid to understanding the process rather
than categorical descriptions. Equally, victims may not progress smoothly through the stages, but may oscillate at times between them.

The extent to which individuals (victims, witnesses, family members, community members) may be affected by crime will vary enormously; at one extreme, people
may shrug off serious crimes with no noticeable effects, while, at the other extreme, they become "stuck" at a particular stage and never move on.

1. Post-traumatic stress disorder

In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders,which is its nosological classification scheme (subsequently revised in 1987, with a fourth edition published in 1994). The World Health Organization has
refined its classification of such disorders in the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases. From an historical perspective, the significant change
introduced by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the aetiological agent was outside the individual (i.e. the traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual
weakness (i.e. a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma".

A traumatic event was conceptualized as clearly distinct from the very painful stressors that constitute the normal vicissitudes of life such as divorce, failure, rejection,
serious illness, financial reverses and the like. This dichotomization between traumatic and other stressors was based on the assumption that, although most
individuals have the ability to cope with ordinary stress, their adaptive capacities are likely to be overwhelmed when confronted by a traumatic stressor.

There are individual variations in the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. While some people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, some meet the
criteria for acute stress disorder, which generally lasts no more than four weeks after the event, while others go on to develop full-blown PTSD. As is the case with
pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences
in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some being more protected and others more vulnerable to developing clinical
symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. It must be emphasized, however, that exposure to events such as rape, torture, genocide and severe war
zone stress is experienced as traumatic almost universally. Recent data from the National Comorbidity Survey of the United States of America indicate that PTSD
prevalence rates are 5 per cent among American men and 10 per cent among American women.

Diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a "traumatic event" and symptoms from each of three symptom clusters: intrusive recollections,
avoidant/numbing symptoms, and hyperarousal symptoms. A further criterion relates to the duration of symptoms. Unlike acute stress reactions, which can appear
within minutes of exceptional stress and disappear within a few hours or a few days at the most, particularly if the stress was transient, PTSD arises as a delayed or
protracted response to an exceptionally stressful event. It usually starts within a few days or weeks of the traumatic event. The course fluctuates in severity and,
although most victims recover, some continue with symptoms for years or a whole lifetime. Furthermore, there is evidence of intergenerational transmission whereby
the children of survivors of trauma also exhibit PTSD symptoms.

The intrusive recollection criterion includes symptoms that are perhaps the most distinctive and readily identifiable symptoms of PTSD. For individuals with PTSD,
the traumatic event remains, sometimes for decades or a lifetime, a dominating psychological experience that retains its power to provoke panic, terror, dread, grief
or despair, as manifested in daytime fantasies, traumatic nightmares or psychotic re-enactments known as PTSD flashbacks.

The avoidant/numbing criterion consists in symptoms reflecting behavioural, cognitive or emotional strategies by which PTSD patients attempt to reduce the
likelihood that they will either expose themselves to trauma-mimetic stimuli or, if exposed, minimize the intensity of their psychological response. Behavioural
strategies include avoiding any situation in which they perceive a risk of confronting such stimuli. The symptoms encompassed by the hyperarousal criterion most
closely resemble those observed in panic and generalized anxiety disorder.

2. Post-traumatic stress and the "conspiracy of silence"

The denial of psychic trauma and its consequences has been a prevalent and consistent theme throughout the twentieth century. There is good evidence for the claim
that when people relate their trauma and are not believed (a frequent occurrence), it is because others do not want to know. To listen, to share and to gain an insight
into the horrible experiences of others reminds us of our own unmitigated vulnerability, helplessness and powerlessness. Another form of rationalization is "blaming
the victim", as in blaming the rape victim for having walked alone or dressed attractively.
Stressful life events seem to unleash a strong need for sharing in victims. However, following extreme traumatic events, victims may participate in the "conspiracy of
silence" by not sharing their experiences and their aftermath, In their study of torture victims, Weisaeth and Lind 2 found that fewer than 1 out of 10 victims disclosed
details of their experience after their release. Certain experiences are seldom revealed unless specifically asked about by another who is experienced as trustworthy
and therefore as a potential source of support.

Although modern telecommunications provide more and more instantaneous information on events around the world, the argument has been made that increasing
and intense "coverage" may lead to apathy as efforts to cope with ever-present, overwhelming news of disturbing events result in a psychological distancing from the
suffering. With the parallel exposure to fictional film and video, the distinction between reality and fantasy is blurred. War may even become entertainment. The
worst-case scenario occurs when the world is a helpless eyewitness and its efforts are merely symbolic, aimed solely at giving the impression that something is being
done. However, it should be noted that the alternative view holds that telecommunications advances are a major contributing factor to the increase of human concern
for others.

3. Effect of trauma on subsequent responses

The literature on the role of prior trauma in subsequent trauma response affords two contrasting perspectives. The first, the vulnerability perspective, holds that
prior trauma leaves permanent psychic damage that renders survivors more vulnerable when subsequently faced with extreme stress. The second, the resilience
perspective, holds that coping well with initial trauma will strengthen resistance to the effects of future trauma. Both perspectives recognize individual differences in
response to trauma, that exposure to massive trauma may overwhelm predisposition and previous experience and that post-trauma human and environmental
factors play important roles in adaptation.

Recent evidence from both Holocaust survivors and combat veterans clearly supports the vulnerability perspective. Subsequent life events such as retirement,
children leaving home, the death of a loved one and other stressful events served as triggers that accelerate and unmask latent PTSD. Solomon and Prager found
similar results in elderly Israeli Holocaust survivors during the Gulf War.3 Likewise, the first neurobiological study of Holocaust survivors provides evidence that the
biological abnormalities in younger PTSD patients persist in elderly survivors.

These and other studies suggest similar lifelong effects of trauma in other victim populations, most notably survivors of mass victimization. Recent studies indicate
that crime victimization increases the risk of depression, PTSD, substance abuse and smoking among women aged 50 and over from a national population sample of
women. These findings underline the importance of examining all populations that have been exposed to serious trauma. The issues concerned may be particularly
applicable to populations that have suffered massive psychic trauma, such as Armenians, Cambodians, Rwandans and torture victims from various other countries.
Recent tragic events in countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia and the Sudan will undoubtedly take a long-range toll and require intervention and long-
term prevention strategies. It is therefore both a clinical and a social policy task to incorporate a multidimensional and interdisciplinary framework in designing
appropriate responses.

C. Secondary victimization from the criminal justice system and society

Secondary victimization refers to the victimization that occurs not as a direct result of the criminal act but through the response of institutions and individuals to the
victim.

Institutionalized secondary victimization is most apparent within the criminal justice system. At times it may amount to a complete denial of human rights to victims
from particular cultural groups, classes or a particular gender, through a refusal to recognize their experience as criminal victimization. It may result from intrusive or
inappropriate conduct by police or other criminal justice personnel. More subtly, the whole process of criminal investigation and trial may cause secondary
victimization, from investigation, through decisions on whether or not to prosecute, the trial itself and the sentencing of the offender, to his or her eventual release.
Secondary victimization through the process of criminal justice may occur because of difficulties in balancing the rights of the victim against the rights of the accused
or the offender. More normally, however, it occurs because those responsible for ordering criminal justice processes and procedures do so without taking into account
the perspective of the victim.

Other agencies that come into contact with the victim may cause secondary victimization. Hospital policies and procedures may restrict relatives' access to the body of
a loved one. The hurried schedule of the emergency room may intrude on the privacy of a sexual assault victim or offend his or her sense of dignity. School personnel
may discount a child's disclosure of abuse. Doctors may not acknowledge signs of spouse abuse. Spiritual leaders may attempt to guide victims into paths of
forgiveness or accommodation before they are ready or against their wishes. Intrusive or inappropriate investigation and filming, photography and reporting by the
media are also factors.

Even agencies set up to help the victims of crime, such as victim services, victim compensation systems, refugee services and mental health institutions may have
some policies and procedures that lead to secondary victimization.

The attitude of individuals is also important. Some people with whom the victim has contact (e.g. family, friends and colleagues) may wish to distance themselves
from the distress of the crime by blaming the victim for what has occurred. They may view the victim's behaviour as having contributed to, or even caused, the
victimization. They may deny the impact of the crime on the victim by urging him or her to forget about the crime and continue with his or her life. Families can be a
particularly powerful influence in this respect.

Victims of abuse of power have particular difficulty in gaining recognition of the fact that they have been victimized. The essence of abuse of power is that it is
committed by those who should be expected to protect the population. The shock and loneliness of victimization can be much greater for these victims. With regard to
abuse of power, for offences committed by particular groups within a country (dominant sects or groups, companies, etc.), prompt condemnation of the action by the
State and by the victim's community will help, as will the message conveyed by any practical action. Where the offender is the State itself, the principal problem of
victims can be in obtaining acknowledgment that an offence has occurred. Here the groups to offer support may consist of people sharing the characteristics of those
who have been victimized or who have been victimized previously themselves. Sometimes, by necessity, they have to be based outside the country.

Victimization linked to community violence derived from ethnic, racial, religious or other social conflict and/or repression requires multipronged strategies of
prevention and control, as well as special attention given to the victims. The implications of severe trauma are critical not only for the present, but also for the future.
The perpetuation of the vicious cycle of family violence is well known, but the massive impact of more general violence, death and lawlessness on children and on the
future of entire societies is only beginning to receive in-depth attention. The consequences for children, whether they serve as pawns of armed conflict, as victims or
as spectators of reprehensible acts, are bound to be far-reaching and so must be the counter-strategies UNDERSTANDING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS A CONCEPT
OF JUSTICE:

What is Restorative Justice?

Defining restorative justice can be elusive because it is a philosophical framework or a way of thinking about crime and conflict, rather than a distinct model or system
of law. It goes beyond how we think about crime and conflict, to how we think about ourselves collectively as a society, how we respond to crime and how we restore
the balance after a crime has been committed.
Following are some other definitions of restorative justice:
Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offense come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the
offense and its implications for the future.
Tony Marshall
In short, restorative justice is a process through which remorseful offenders accept responsibility for their misconduct to those injured and to the community that, in
response allows the reintegration of the offender into the community. The emphasis is on restoration: restoration of the offender in terms of his or her self-respect,
restoration of the relationship between offender and victims, as well as restoration of both offenders and victims within the community.
John Haley
Restorative justice "holds that criminal behavior is primarily a violation of one individual by another. When a crime is committed, it is the victim who is harmed, not
the state; instead of the offender owing a 'debt to society' which must be expunged by experiencing some form of state-imposed punishment, the offender owes a
specific debt to the victim which can only be repaid by making good the damage caused."
Zehr, 1990
Restorative justice provides a very different framework for understanding and responding to crime. Crime is understood as harm to individuals and communities,
rather than simply a violation of abstract laws against the state. Those most directly affected by crime -- victims, community members and offenders -- are therefore
encouraged to play an active role in the justice process. Rather than the current focus on offender punishment, restoration of the emotional and material losses
resulting from crime is far more important.
Mark Umbreit
In general, all restorative models focus on holding the offender accountable in a more meaningful way, repairing the harm caused by the offence, reintegrating the
offender into the community, achieving a sense of healing for both the victim and the community. Components of restorative justice that may exist in one community
may not exist in others. There are however, broad parameters or principles within which almost all restorative justice initiative fit.

What is the difference between restorative justice and our current justice system?
Restorative justice, then:
Is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime;
Focuses on the harm caused by crime: repairing the harm done to victims and reducing future harm by preventing crime;
Requires offenders to take responsibility for their actions and for the harm they have caused;
Seeks redress for victims, recompense by offenders and reintegration of both within the community;
is achieved through a co-operative effort by communities and the government.

The best way of highlighting these principles is by contrasting them with the existing court-driven adversarial system.
What are the benefits for me?
The Victim: Restorative justice recognizes that as a victim, you have distinct needs. Restorative justice will provide you with an opportunity to:
 Express your feelings and ask questions
 Have your experience, your feelings, concerns and suffering acknowledged
 Develop some understanding of the offender’s motivation for committing the offence
 Say how the harm done by the incident might be repaired

The Offender: Crime hurts victims, communities and offenders and creates an obligation to make amends. Restorative justice will provide you with an
opportunity to:
 Take responsibility for your action in a safe environment
 Be an active participant in determining how you may begin to repair the harm done
 Hear first-hand how your behavior has affected people
 Ask for help with problems that may have contributed to the wrongdoing

The Community: Crime affects everyone, and we need to work together to repair the harm and create safer communities. Restorative justice actively
involves community members by providing an opportunity to:
 Take responsibility for, and actively participate in, achieving justice in your community
 Focus on the cause of crime and do something about them
 Support the victim and ensure there are opportunity in the community for the offender to make amends
Adversarial System Restorative Justice
Crime is defined as a violation of rules, and a harm to the State
 Victim is inhibited from speaking about his/her loses and needs  Crime is seen as a harm to the victim and communities

 Offender, victim and Community remain passive and 

have
Victim
little
is central to the process of defining the harm and how it might be
responsibility for resolution

 Community’s role is limited  Offender, victim and community are active and participate in the
resolution resulting from the restorative forum
 Restitution is rare
 Community is actively involved in holding the offender accountable,
 Controlled and operated by the state and supporting
professionals
the who
victims
seem
and ensuring the opportunities for offenders to make amends

 Restitution is normal
 Offender is blamed, stigmatized and punished
 Overseen by the state, but usually driven by communities
  The long term protection of the public mandates a focus on the methods
of problem solving that include the reintegration of the offender into the community and
preservation of his dignity

How does the restorative justice process work?

Restorative justice can come in many forms, depending on the circumstances of the case, the point in the system, in which a restorative option is invoked, and the
traditions and preferences of the communities that adopt restorative alternatives.
The real essence of restorative justice is in the face-to-face meeting between the victim, offender and members of the community. During the course of that meeting
each party is given an opportunity to tell the story of the crime from their own perspective, and talk about their concerns and feelings. The meeting helps the parties
to develop an understanding of the crime, of the other parties, and of the steps needed to make amends. The meeting concludes with an agreement outlining how the
offender will make reparation. Reparation can include monetary payment, service to the victim, community service or any other measure agreed upon by the parties.

In the current criminal justice system, victims frequently feel frustrated and left out of their own cases, except perhaps for being witnesses. Restorative justice
recognizes that victims have many needs. They need an opportunity to speak about their feelings and to have the power restored to them that has been taken away by
the experience of the offence; they need recognition of the pain and suffering they have endured; and they also need to understand the offender’s motivation for
committing the a crime. Restorative justice recognizes these needs, and allows for victim involvement in determining how those needs can best be met.

Restorative Justice: the Concept

These are the opening words in a recent publication of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) characterizing the combined community and restorative justice
movements. Author Eduardo Barajas Jr., a program specialist for NIC, goes on to observe that the changes extend beyond most reforms in the history of criminal
justice: "What is occurring now is more than innovative, it is truly inventive . . . a `paradigm shift."' The restorative justice movement has come a long way since
probation officer Mark Yantzi and co-worker Dave Worth first pushed two shaking offenders toward their victims' homes in Elmira, Ontario, in 1974. Who could have
imagined, when we began our version of victim/offender mediation -- the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program, or VORP – in Elkhart, Ind., several years later that
we were at the vanguard of a movement with the potential to revolutionize justice?

Crime as Harm
As Barajas' observation above implies, restorative justice is not a matter of adding some new programs or tinkering with old ones. Instead, it involves a reorientation
of how we think about crime and justice. At a recent consultation of restorative justice and rehabilitation specialists sponsored by the NIC Academy, participants
agreed that two ideas were fundamental: restorative justice is harm-focused, and it promotes the engagement of an enlarged set of stakeholders. Most of restorative
justice can be seen as following from these two concepts. Restorative justice views crime, first of all, as harm done to people and communities. Our legal system, with
its focus on rules and laws, often loses sight of this reality; consequently, it makes victims, at best, a secondary concern of justice. A harm focus, however, implies a
central concern for victims' needs and roles. Restorative justice begins with a concern for victims and how to meet their needs, for repairing the harm as much as
possible, both concretely and symbolically.
A focus on harm also implies an emphasis on offender accountability and responsibility - - in concrete, not abstract, terms. Too often we have thought of accountability
as punishment --pain administered to offenders for the pain they have caused. Unfortunately, this often is irrelevant or even counterproductive to real accountability.
Little in the justice process encourages offenders to understand the consequences of their actions or to empathize with victims. On the contrary, the adversarial game
requires offenders to look out for themselves.

Offenders are discouraged from acknowledging their responsibility and are given little opportunity to act on this responsibility in concrete ways. The "neutralizing
strategies" – the stereotypes and rationalizations that offenders use to distance themselves from the people they hurt -- are never challenged. So the sense of
alienation from society experienced by many offenders, the feeling that they themselves are victims, is only heightened by the legal process and the prison experience.

If crime is essentially about harm, accountability means being encouraged to understand that harm, to begin to comprehend the consequences of one's behavior.
Moreover, it means taking responsibility to make things right insofar as possible, both concretely and symbolically. As our fore parents knew well, wrong creates
obligations; taking responsibility for those obligations is the beginning of genuine accountability.

The principle of engagement suggests that the primary parties affected by crime --victims, offenders, members of the community -- are given significant roles in the
justice process. Indeed, they need to be given information about each other and to be involved in
deciding what justice requires in this situation. In some cases, this may mean actual dialogue between these parties, as happens in victim/offender mediation or
family group conferences, to come to a consensus about what should be done. In others, it may involve indirect exchange or the use of surrogates. In any eventuality,
the principle of engagement implies involvement of an enlarged circle of parties as compared to the traditional justice process.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the restorative justice and the traditional justice approach -- retributive justice -- might be summarized as follows:

Retributive Justice
Crime is a violation of the law, and the state is the victim.
The aim of justice is to establish blame (guilt) and administer pain (punishment).
The process of justice is a conflict between adversaries in which the offender is pitted against state rules, intentions outweigh outcomes and one side wins while the
other loses.
Restorative Justice
Crime is a violation or harm to people and relationships.
The aim of justice is to identify obligations, to meet needs and to promote healing.
The process of justice involves victims, offenders and the community in an effort to identify obligations and solutions, maximizing the exchange of information (dialogue,
mutual agreement) between them. To put restorative justice in its simplest form: crime violates people and violations create obligations. Justice should involve victims,
offenders and community members in a search to identify needs and obligations, so as to promote healing among the parties involved.

CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE UNITED NATIONSThe basic purpose of United Nations is to protect the human rights of people and to maintain the peace in this
world. Therefore, for the improvement of the humanity, United Nations has been playing a great role in protecting the human rights of the victims of crime. From time
to time it has been calling the international conventions, declarations and other forms of international seminars. One of the most important developments in the field
of victimology in the last twenty years has been the formal approval by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 11, 1985 of the “UN Declaration of
basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power”. In the Declaration the broadest definition of victim has been given in paragraphs 1&2. The victim
is not the person who himself suffered harm physical, emotional or economic loss but term “victim” also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or
dependants of the direct victim and person who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization. Following rights have been
granted to victims:

Access to justice and fair treatmentIt is said that victims should be treated with compassion and dignity. They are entitled to justice and prompt remedy provided
under national legislation. It is important o provide the information to the victims regarding his role, scope, timing and progress of proceedings and disposition of
their cases; while allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented at appropriate stages when their personal interests are affected without prejudice to
accused. It is also important to provide proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process and to take measures to minimize inconvenience to victims and more
importantly protect their privacy and ensure their safety. Of course, avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and execution of orders or decrees granting
awards to victim

RestitutionOffenders or third parties responsible for their behaviour should, where appropriate, make fair restitution to victims, their families or dependants. Such
restitution should include the return of property or payment for the harm or loss suffered, reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the victimization, the
provision of services and the restoration of rights. Governments should review their practices, regulations and laws to consider restitution as an available sentencing
option in criminal cases, in addition to other criminal sanctions. In cases of substantial harm to the environment, restitution, if ordered, should include, as far as
possible, restoration of the environment, reconstruction of the infrastructure, replacement of community facilities and reimbursement of the expences of relocation,
whenever such harm results in the dislocation of a community.

Compensation
When compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources, states should endeavour to provide financial compensation to:

1. Victims who have sustained significant bodily injury or impairment of physical or mental health as a result of serious crimes;
2. The family, in particular dependants of persons who have died or become physically or mentally incapacitated as a result of such
victimization.
3. The establishment, strengthening and expansion of national funds for compensation to victims should be encouraged. Where appropriate,
other funds may also be established for this purpose, including those cases where the state of which the victim is a national is not in a position to compensate the
victim for the harm.

COMPENSATION UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Recently the Supreme Court of India has given a new dimension to the Article 21 by interpreting it dynamically so as to include compensation to the victims under its
scope. Indian constitution has several provisions which endorse the principle of victim compensation. In one case the Supreme Court, considering the plight of many
rape victims in the country, wanted the National Commission for Women to draw up a scheme for compulsory payment to victims of sexual violence. Despite the
sympathy expressed in several circles, victim compensation law continues to be in an unsatisfactory acknowledge in criminal justice with the result there is very little
interest shown by them in successful prosecution of criminal cases.[viii]Besides the many judgements of various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, the Law
Commission of India has also submitted the crucial Reports in which it has recommended to provide the compensation to the victims of crime. Among many reports,
142nd, 144th, 146th, 152nd, 154th and 156th are very important reports which have made very important contributions towards compensation of victims. Following the
various reports and judicial decisions, the Government of India has made amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure and s.157A has been inserted in 2009.

Fifth Law Commission, in 42nd report[ix] dealt with compensation to victim of crime in India. While dealing, it referred to and highlighted the “three
patterns” of compensating victims of crime as reflected in Code of Criminal Procedure of France, Germany, and (Former) Russia. The three patterns are:

 Compensation by the state;

 Compensation by the offender either by asking him to pay it from the fine imposed or a specified amount; and
 3) Duty to repair the damage done by the offender.

----------------XXXXXXXXXX------------