A recent murder trial raised the issue of whether victims should be forced to have their evidence tested via cross-examination by the defence.
Such an experience is inevitably going to be emotionally painful for witnesses and, equally inevitably, out of compassion we would want to reduce the suffering of people who have already endured terrible experiences.
And yet...with liberty at stake, to be swayed by compassion in the adversarial process would undermine justice. Evidence must be tested, harshly, before people are convicted and thrown in prison.
Of course victims deserve compassion, but never to the extent that this undermines the rights of the defendant. We must never forget that while the process may be difficult for witnesses, the potential consequences for those on trial are even worse.
Whether you are seeking a criminal justice degree, on trial yourself, or are involved with the criminal justice system in any way, you know that this torment is inevitable in the criminal justice process. Its purpose is to attribute responsibility and punishment.
If we, as a society, want a process that aims to reduce additional harm, we really must seriously consider the benefits of restorative justice.
Showing posts with label conflict resolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict resolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Answers, Sunday 15th Nov
BabsG-
1. What's the PhD all about then? What aspects of it are you able to work on inside and what resources do you have to do this?
The short version is this: The field conflict theory and conflict resolution incorporates the idea of Human Needs Theory. This holds that all people have a set of fundamental needs, and that they will struggle to fulfil these needs.
I am attempting to apply Human Needs Theory to the prison environment. Prison, as a matter of deliberate policy, suppresses fundamental needs. My interest is in how prisoners struggle to fulfil these needs and the role that this may play in violent conflict between us, as well as between us and the institution. In riots, for example.
The aspects of this I am able to research here, and the facilities available, are a bone of contention between myself and management. Which is why I'm unemployed and not in the Education Department.
2. Do you think that there is any place for non-violent, non-sexual offenders in prison? Or where would you draw the line?
This strikes at the heart of the debate that should exist around imprisonment, in that the answer to your question rests on what the purpose of prison is intended to be.
As a general proposition, I think that throwing people in prison is a community's way of failing, or refusing, to deal with their own problems. Rather than taking responsibility for dealing with our fellow man, prison allows communities to turn their back on the problem and hand it over to the State.
There are those who are so physically destructive and dangerous that communities may not be able to deal with them. Prison may make sense in that context, although we should ask ourselves how aboriginal, nomadic societies manage to cope with such people without the luxury of prison?
However, most of those in prison are not violent or sexual predators. Rather, they are damaged people with messed up lives and little stake in their communities. Putting them in prison not only fails to deal with their particular flaws, it also strips them of what little social and personal capital they had, which helps explain why most return to prison.
There is no reason why the community itself can both hold these people to account and also support then in addressing their problems. Take drug addicts. Throwing them in prison may stop them robbing your goods but it doesn't alter their fundamental problem one bit. Prison does nothing that cannot be done in the community, with the added disadvantage of stripping them of what few good parts of their life they were managing to maintain.
Even those who do pose a grave threat, such as sexual predators, can be kept in the community safely. The Circles of Support I have previously mentioned do, if necessary, have someone with the criminal at all times in order to ensure that they don't offend.
As it is, prison allows communities to opt for a short term solution to a problem they could cope with themselves. Perhaps relying on the government to deal with every problem is a reflection of the state of our communities and relationships with each other?
1. What's the PhD all about then? What aspects of it are you able to work on inside and what resources do you have to do this?
The short version is this: The field conflict theory and conflict resolution incorporates the idea of Human Needs Theory. This holds that all people have a set of fundamental needs, and that they will struggle to fulfil these needs.
I am attempting to apply Human Needs Theory to the prison environment. Prison, as a matter of deliberate policy, suppresses fundamental needs. My interest is in how prisoners struggle to fulfil these needs and the role that this may play in violent conflict between us, as well as between us and the institution. In riots, for example.
The aspects of this I am able to research here, and the facilities available, are a bone of contention between myself and management. Which is why I'm unemployed and not in the Education Department.
2. Do you think that there is any place for non-violent, non-sexual offenders in prison? Or where would you draw the line?
This strikes at the heart of the debate that should exist around imprisonment, in that the answer to your question rests on what the purpose of prison is intended to be.
As a general proposition, I think that throwing people in prison is a community's way of failing, or refusing, to deal with their own problems. Rather than taking responsibility for dealing with our fellow man, prison allows communities to turn their back on the problem and hand it over to the State.
There are those who are so physically destructive and dangerous that communities may not be able to deal with them. Prison may make sense in that context, although we should ask ourselves how aboriginal, nomadic societies manage to cope with such people without the luxury of prison?
However, most of those in prison are not violent or sexual predators. Rather, they are damaged people with messed up lives and little stake in their communities. Putting them in prison not only fails to deal with their particular flaws, it also strips them of what little social and personal capital they had, which helps explain why most return to prison.
There is no reason why the community itself can both hold these people to account and also support then in addressing their problems. Take drug addicts. Throwing them in prison may stop them robbing your goods but it doesn't alter their fundamental problem one bit. Prison does nothing that cannot be done in the community, with the added disadvantage of stripping them of what few good parts of their life they were managing to maintain.
Even those who do pose a grave threat, such as sexual predators, can be kept in the community safely. The Circles of Support I have previously mentioned do, if necessary, have someone with the criminal at all times in order to ensure that they don't offend.
As it is, prison allows communities to opt for a short term solution to a problem they could cope with themselves. Perhaps relying on the government to deal with every problem is a reflection of the state of our communities and relationships with each other?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
