chap 13

kmunoz12

9e_ch13.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >chap 13

8/18/2015

Prepared by Emily Berthelot, University of Arkansas at Little Rock ©

CHAPTER

THIRTEEN

VICTIMS IN THE

TWENTY-FIRST

CENTURY:

ALTERNATIVE

DIRECTIONS

1. To understand the principles and rationales behind laws

governing the use of force in self-defense.

2. To become conversant with the arguments of both sides in the

debate over arming for self-protection.

3. To be able to recognize instances of retaliatory violence and

vigilantism.

4. To become familiar with the principles and rationales of

restorative justice.

6. To be able to compare and contrast restorative justice with

retributive justice.

7. To become familiar with how restorative justice programs

operate.

8. To become aware of the pros and cons of resolving more cases

at restorative justice programs.

Learning Objectives

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Vigilantism vs. Legitimate Use of Force in

Self-Defense

 Four rationales shaping self defense

statutes:

 Punitive rationale

 Rationale of necessity

 Individualist rationale

 Social rationale

8/18/2015

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Vigilantism vs. Legitimate Use of Force

1. Threat posed by aggressor—imminent

2. If offender retreating—no longer a threat,

so deadly force not justified

3. Victim belief of harm reasonable

4. Degree of force proportionate to threat

5. Timing of victim’s action appropriate

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Would victims be better off if armed?

 Around 50% of all households had access to a firearm in 2011.

 Arguments Advanced by Proponents of Arming for Self- Protection:

1. Reaching for a gun can save a victim’s life

2. Instills peace of mind

3. Would-be criminals might think twice before attacking

4. Brandishing a gun may cut short an attack

5. Firing a gun may save a victim’s life

6. People ought to take responsibility for their own safety and prepare to defend themselves and their families

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Gun Control Advocates Claim: 1. There are far too many guns in circulation already. 2. Very few victims draw a weapon in their own self defense when

under attack 3. Getting a gun for protection actually puts its owner in greater

danger 4. Introducing a gun into a conflict is likely to lead to an escalation of

hostilities 5. Some so-called ―law-abiding citizens’ who own guns for protection

might actually use firearms to commit crimes 6. People who own guns for protection might turn their weapons on

themselves 7. Guns owned for protection can accidentally discharge and claim

significant numbers of live and mar many others 8. Victims might lose shootouts against better armed, more ruthless

opponents

8/18/2015

Towards Retaliatory Justice

F I G U R E

13.1

Trends in

Justifiable

Homicides,

United States,

1988–2013

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Do It Yourself Approach

 Back Alley Justice

 Curbstone Justice

 Street Justice

 Frontier Justice—Lynching

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Vigilantism—often arises as a response

to victimization

 Retaliation appeals to many Americans

 Criminals can be vigilantes also

 Gang shootings, Mafia hit men

8/18/2015

Towards Retaliatory Justice

 Transforming victims into offenders and

offenders into victims is not the solution to the

crime problem. There are too many offenders

already. We don’t need victims to become

offenders through retaliatory violence!

Author

Toward Restorative Justice

Peacemaking

 Restorative Justice— Draws upon non-punitive

methods of peacemaking, mediation, negotiation,

dispute resolution, conflict management, and

constructive engagement

 Embraces themes of victim rights movement

 Retributive Justice— State centered, offender-

focused, punishment-oriented rather than injury-

centered, victim focused, and reparation-oriented

Toward Restorative Justice

Peacemaking

 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

 Mediation— Direct negotiations between disputants

 Conciliation— Go-between facilitates flow of information between disputants

 Arbitration— Neutral fact finder called in to break deadlocks and imposes a fair, final, and legally binding decision

8/18/2015

Restorative Justice

 How Reconciliation Programs Work

 Restitution is symbolic gesture and prerequisite for reacceptance of community

 Provides basis for forgiveness

 Only community can provide reintegration

 Third party facilitates and oversees process

Restorative Justice

 History of resolving conflict

 Multi-door courthouses

 Neighborhood justice centers

 Moot Model of Informal Justice

 Guilt/innocence; right/wrong; Non-issues

 Goal was to reconcile parties

 Repair neighborhood rifts

 Philadelphia and Columbus first to use ADR (70s)

 1980: Congress passed Dispute Resolution Act

 2002: U.N. recommends to member countries

Toward Restorative Justice

Peacemaking

 Peacemaking Circles— Native American tribal culture developed a consensus about how to restore harmony to afflicted individuals—participation by system representatives, neighbors, community groups, religious groups.

 Family Group Conferencing— Maori, New Zealand culture where offenders describes ordeal to relatives, friends, and neighbors and victim explains impact of crime upon him.

Group determines the appropriate sanctions in both of these methodologies.

8/18/2015

Restorative Justice

 Pros and Cons from Victims Point of View:

 Way to resolve without making an arrest

 Allows victims to ask questions about why, how, etc.

 Speedier and cheaper form of justice

 Healing and redemption undermine justice and responsibility

 Does not protect accuser as state courts do

 Closed to the public

 Blameless victims may feel cheated if compromise involved with offender

Restorative Justice

 Future:  More cases will be referred to this process.

 How will the system handle it—streamlining?

 Will process be compromised if overworked?

 Will this provide a framework for social change that government has not provided?

 More serious cases do not fit.

 Can restorative justice programs truly rehabilitate serious offenders?