Text
E-book Sexual Violence and Restorative Justice : Addressing the Justice Gap
Sexual violence1 in all its forms, whether intra- familial, within institutions, an-onymous, or during conflicts, although frequent and widespread as can be seen in all the media reports, is a crime for which anecdotal accounts and scholarly reports seem to suggest that the victims in their great majority do not receive redress. It is a crime with high levels of attrition (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005; Temkin & Krahé, 2008), for which victims may feel discouraged or even punished for coming for-ward and sometimes re- victimised by criminal justice and other institutional pro-cesses (Bourke, 2007; Topping, 2021). It is a widely recognised fact that the current and traditional approach to ‘justice’ (that procured in a formalistic way by police authorities, the court system, the prison, etc.) is limited in what it can offer in terms of ‘justice’ to victims or accountability for offenders of sexual crime, in part be-cause of its structure and aims (Cossins, 2020; Keenan & Griffiths, 2019; Rossner & Forsyth, 2021; Temkin & Krahé, 2008). This type of ‘conventional justice’ is in-tended to establish culpability for wrongdoing under the law, within a highly ad-versarial system regarding the laws of evidence. Research has found that this approach to justice does not fundamentally address victims’ needs nor makes of-fenders feel more responsible for what they have done (see Keenan, 2014; Zinsstag & Keenan, 2017), that there is a real ‘justice gap’ regarding this type of crime (Cossins, 2020; Temkin & Krahé, 2008). In short, the criminal justice system, in its classical meaning, seems to be rather limited in its potential to contribute alone to effective problem solving.2The advances made by public campaigns, national legislations, and international courts concerning sexual violence in the last decades have however contributed to greater awareness of sexual crimes and their aftermath, resulting in changes in le-gislation and substantial and procedural legal practices, much of which has been seen to help victims (McGlynn & Munro, 2010; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2015). Reforms have included the development of special units within the police forces to deal sensitively with victims of sexual crime; victim accompaniment in court and the provision of victim liaison services for victims (see Keenan & Griffith, 2021); the adoption of more robust prosecution guidelines; and inter alia the recognition that sexual violence can be used in times of war as a war tactic and therefore can be judged as a war crime (see Zinsstag, 2006, 2008). Despite these innovations how-ever, it still remains a fact that it is difficult to prosecute sexual crime and to se-cure a criminal conviction and for victims to have an experience of justice via the criminal justice system (see e.g. Cossins, 2020; McGlynn & Munroe, 2010; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2015). Further there is little room for the impact of the trauma on victims to be heard in the course of criminal proceedings, or for their story to be told outside of the limit of carefully crafted legal ‘evidential’ questions until a con-viction is secured when then the limited medium of Victim Impact Statements give victims an opportunity to report the impact on them some jurisdictions, e.g. in Ireland or in some of the international courts (see also de Brouwer, 2005; Keenan, 2017; Keenan & Griffith, 2019, 2021; Temkin, 2002).Offenders too have limited opportunity to explain their offending, make rep-aration or offer an apology in the course of criminal proceedings (Braithwaite & Daly, 1994; Radzik, 2007). In the main, offenders are often advised to remain silent by legal advisers as is their right in law and in due process (Godenzi, 1994; Keenan, 2017). However, as Keenan’s (2012, 2014) research with offenders illustrates this leaves gaps for offenders too.
Tidak tersedia versi lain