Hello, I'm John allre Before you listen to this episode, a couple of
things. These are podcasts from the first season of Who Killed Teresa. They
haven't been heard in over four years. They're raw, it took me a
while to develop a style. A lot of people like them that way,
unvarnished. Others commented that it was amateurish. Nonetheless, here they are.
I'm edited. I haven't gone back and listened to them, I haven't cleaned
them up. Thanks for listening. And once again, life isn't fair.
Justice is blind and dysfunctional, and some cops aren't smart and dedicated like on
television. This is Who Killed Teresa? Hey, welcome to the show.
This Is Who Killed Teresa a podcast about criminal justice, social justice, and
some unsolved murders in the province of Quebec. I'm your host, John A.
Lore and I'm excited to welcome today's guest, Joanne Wemmers. She's here
to talk about her latest book, Victimology Canadian Perspective. Joanne is a professor
of criminology at the University of Montreal and an international expert on victimology. She
has published over a hundred articles, chapters and books on the subject and is
past Secretary General of the World Society of Victimology and is the editor of the
International Review of Victimology. Joanne, Welcome to Who Killed Teresa? Thanks John,
glad to be here. Great and here in Montreal. Yes, great,
fantastic. I hope you're enjoying a wonderful Saturday. So, you know,
by means of an introductory or an introduction to the book on victimology,
can you kind of lay the groundwork a little bit and tell our audience.
I mean it may be self evident, but possibly not, just the difference
between criminology and victimology or the relationship between the two disciplines. Great question,
and I'll give you the shortest answer possibly possible. Victimology started by it was
the criminologist that started saying, you know, while we're studying crime, we
should be looking at the victim as well. Originally, their only concern with
victims was to help them explain the crime, because after all, they were
criminologists. And that was around the time of the Second World War. After
the Second World War, gradually there was an evolution in particularly i'd say after
maybe even the Vietnam War, where we were becoming more and more where that
we shouldn't just be looking at victims as an actor in the crime, but
also try to understand the consequences of victimization, the impact that it has on
people on their lives. And so there was a growing call for services as
well, and we saw the emergence of the first victim compensation programs in countries
like England, United States, Canada in the sixties. Already in the seventies
it continued. So victimology has grown from criminology, one can say. Over
the years, there's been quite a bit of debate whether victimology is a science
in a dome right, whether it should be, or whether it should continue
to stay part of criminology. The biggest concern or the biggest argument, I
think the most important one is that that criminology really focuses on crime, and
if you want to be strict about that, the quote is defined as a
crime. It finds found in the criminal Code, which means you're very limited
in terms of what you can look at. And that's why some people,
and I'm one of them, argue for an approach that's much more focused on
violes of human rights, including crimes. Crime is a violation of the human
rights of the victim, and that allows us the freedom to look at things
that might not be defined in the criminal code yet classic example abuses of power
by the state, for example, that might not legally be crimes but clearly
victimization, or simply things that haven't that are new on our radar. For
example, in Canada, it wasn't until twenty fifteen that forced marriage became a
crime, and yet it was something that victimologists were looking at already, so
I think, and it's something that you find in the UN Declaration of Human
Rights as well or Universal Declaration of Human Rights where they talk about the freedom
of choice when it comes to marriages. So it's clearly a human rights violation
since the forties the fifties, but it didn't become a crime in Canada at
least until very recently. So I think that that victimology focuses on violations of
human rights, which can include crimes, so that is a little bit larger
um. What's interesting as well, as in recent years we've seen criminology become
i think influenced by the work being done in victimology, where you see gradually
criminologists looking at crimes like genocide, something which had been ignored essentially since the
Second World War, surprisingly the crime of crimes um and yet in the last
ten years criminologist seems to have rediscovered that. And I think in part is
influenced by the work we see in victimology and its focus on gross violations of
human rights right and in many ways, I guess in it, in its
earliest sense, the victim's role in a court process was in its you know,
in its infancy, really about prepping a witness. No, I mean,
I mean that was kind of was like you had victims who were witnesses
to crimes, so that's how they would be integrated into the criminal process.
Can you talk about a little bit of the criminal justice system in Canada and
how how it exists today and how in many senses that the victims are marginalized
from the process today, victims still are, unfortunately in Canada and I believe
much so in the US as well, witnesses to a crime against the state,
which can only make sense to a lawyer, because it doesn't make sense
to anyone who has not studied law that they could be the object, they
could experience a crime, but actually technically be witnesses to a crime against the
state. And that is the beginning and the explains everything that follows regarding victims
marginalization in the criminal justice process, because they are there, as you said,
as witnesses, not as the person who has some sort of status unique
as the person who experienced the crime, and that's why we're One of the
arguments I make is that that crime is a violation of the victor human rights
as well as an offense against the state, and that I think is an
important distinction to make. But because victims are only witnesses technically in the criminal
justice process, they're essentially marginalized and have no real role in our adversarial process.
Once they report a crime to the police. After that all their power,
any control they had over essentially given over to the state, and it's
the state, or in the name of the police, or later the prosecutor,
who will decide whether or not there's sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal justice
or prosecute prosecution and etc. So victims don't have any control and they don't
have any any sort of unique position or status in the process. And that's
a fundamental flaw because it just flies in the face of what the victims experiencing.
It's not what people expect, and it ends up being what we refer
to as the second victimization, the first being the crime itself in the second
one being their treatment mistreatment in the criminal justice process. Right and din you
discuss this the idea of we we tend on the one hand to believe in,
you know, these these tropes about a just society, yet on the
other hand, that the general population seems totally dis disinterested or disaffected by the
victims experience. They they kind of see a stereotype of how a victim should
be behaved and are sometimes quite shocked when when their responses to the secondary victimization
may not fit those stereotypes. There are all sorts of associations or expectations we
make of victims um, and the victim is if you think of the word,
it's not it's not a pretty word. It's not something um that the
people are are happy, you know, associating or being labeled with ergo.
You hear a lot of victims say, I don't like the label. I
don't want to called a victim. I'd rather be I'm a survivor. One
of the arguments I'm make in the book is that this is before we can
become a survivor, we first have to recognize the victimization. So why in
the book I talk about victims and use that word even though victims often later
are want to be recognized as survivors. But yes, the victims come across
as being particularly strong rather than weak, active rather than passive. This is
often this can lead to you know, negative reactions or judgments by the public
in general. I mean some interesting work done for example by Jan Vandyke where
he looked at in a series of victims, high profile victims in Europe,
for example, including a Natasha Kampusch who was in Austria who had a horrible
victimization. She had been captured and I think it was ten years of age
and kept for years in the basement of her the home of her aggressor,
and finally one day she managed to escape and he when he realized that she
had escaped, killed himself. So there never was a criminal justice a trial.
But afterwards she was in the media a lot, and in some of
the interviews she would describe or her relationship with her aggressor, not always in
terms of negative horrible monster. Would you understand at one level, if if
from the age of you know, a childhood right through this person is the
only person you have your relationship is it's not just one sided, it's not
one color, it's it's very nuanced. And the fact that she could even
have any empathy for the person who had clearly victimized her and done something that
was clearly unacceptable, and she was was frowned upon, and she was in
many ways condemned, one could say in public opinion because of her reaction.
Wasn't what people expected? Something we see as well. I did a paper
on it with victims of sexual vibe. Again, we have certain expectations about
how the victims should react. We expect victims to denounce immediately afterwards, and
when victims most victims don't denounce immediately afterwards. And when they don't, why
didn't you you know, was there some editing? So we judge people's behavior
quite quickly, um as opposed to trying to understand, you know, the
psychology of the individual and the impact of trauma on individuals and their behavior.
Well, one of the complex things I think you bring up is that in
the case of sexual assault, certainly that over sixty percent of those who are
assaulted in some way have a relationship with their assailant. And just think about
how confusing that can be in terms of that's that's not a black and white
world we're talking about at all exactly. And then you see the the you
know, the nuances, and people start to blame themselves, and the likelihood
that the person will report the crime increases when it's a stranger, when it's
particularly violent. Um So you see that it's that that question of how obvious
is because at its heart victimization recognizing something as a victimization, it's a subjective
interpretation. So when something happens to you, there's no real objective criteria to
say that was a victimizations. It depends on how you interpret it. And
that that's I think is key. So when you come to a type of
offense where you know the aggressor and you know maybe it's less violent, more
psychological, then you can see there a lot of nuance becomes difficult for the
person and they start doubting themselves, they start questioning themselves, and and that's
that's the reality that you know, these things happen in relationships with other human
beings which are very nuanced, very subtle things. Can you walk us through
a little bit briefly of the history of UM I guess victim's advocacy in Canada.
I think you mentioned that it began with the creation of women shelters UM
and with you know, a great base of volunteers and has gradually become more
professional. But that certainly as it becomes more professional and you know, gets
gets UM intermeshed with with the government, that there's a danger there of being
compromised by the co opting of the victims movement. Yeah, that's something that
people have been talking about for ages, and I think it's very important.
I mean, I think no matter what, we always have to keep,
you know, a critical thought is key and we can't be lazy as citizens.
We always have to ask, okay, is who's benefiting from this?
And the victims movement is a key example. There's great work by Robert Elias
of American political scientist on this, who looks at the state compensation schemes in
the nineteen eighties in the United States and says, you know, who who's
benefiting from these? Because they're excluding a large group of victims of violence.
People with serious needs who are being categorically excluded. Their criteria are so narrow
um injury victims are not included. It's only direct victims of certain crimes.
So who exactly is benefiting from this? And he comes to the conclusion that
these programs were put in placement to a large extent to pay lip service to
victims, to say, look, we've done something for victims without actually helping
victims. And it's quite interesting because if you do look at the compensation schemes
in the states, in Canada in particular, I can speak to that because
I did an analysis of right across the country, the ten provinces and the
three territories, what do we have And the reality is that a we do
not have victims compensation across the country. The poorest regions in Canada stopped having
programs when the federal government put an end to its transfer of funding, so
sharing the cost, the burden, financial burden of these programs, and that
that would that would be the territories in Newfoundland correct exactly exactly, and that
was in ninety three, and so they and all the rest of the provinces,
with the well even Quebec tried have since downsized their programs considerably since then,
simply because they didn't have the funds anymore to offer the same level of
service. M SO. And when you look at well, who who,
what are they offering and who are they offering too, what are the rules
that go with it, it's very very limited. UM. Some programs,
for example in Manitoba, they'll look at whether or not the person has had
has been convicted of any sort of crimes in the last few years. So
we're not talking about whether your injuries are the result of a crime, but
whether maybe five years ago you would stopped for vagrancy for example. I mean
we're talking serious crimes, we're talking minor offenses. And if that was the
case, well then you'll lose points. And the fact that this has nothing
to do with your current victimization doesn't matter. You will get less compensation as
a result. So there was this one example recently and that would caught of
a mother in Manitoba. Her daughter had been murdered and when she applied to
get some sort of help paying the funeral expenses, she was essentially refused because
her daughter had in the past committed some crimes, had a record which has
nothing to do with her victimization, and therefore she was refused any sort of
assistance with the funeral costs. And even if the person were to get offense
or commit an offense after they'd received compensation, there too they run the risk
of having their compensation reduced. So again you see, it had nothing to
do with their victimization. So you have to ask yourself, Okay, well
what's this about, what are we doing, what's the objective of these programs
and what should it be? And what you see is I think they have
a follow a criminal justice model where they're very much rewarding behavior people for example,
reporting to the police, cooperating with authorities, law abiding behavior, but
they're not looking at the knee needs of the individual. So, for example,
even if you are an ideal model citizen, but you have a history
of victimization and your prior victimizations did not make you eligible. For example,
you missed the one year deadline for compensation in your province. But this new
victimization, you're able to get compensation if there are psychological consequences that you're suffering
and those are in a way a result of prior victimization. They will not
provide you with psychological assistance or extended counseling in order to deal with those the
damages or the problems that you already had to your victimization. It really will
stop there. I had one expert explain to me it's like if someone had
a broken arm as a result of their victimization, and prior to that they
already had some difficulties moving their arm. They're going to give you physiotherapy to
sort of fix that, to take it back to the level it was at
the moment of your victimization, but they're not going to restore full operation of
your arm, so it's very very limited. UM. And when you know
that prior victimization puts you at risk of future victimization, UM, you realize
that we're creating a vicious circle that makes it very difficult for the most vulnerable
members of our society to get out of UM. And we're really creating two
separate groups, the haves and the have not and the most needy are in
many ways being ignored. Well, I think I think you hit it right
there with the bar set that high. Think think of the the marginalized communities
that you're excluding from the mix. As you say the people most prone to
secondary victimization, who need the compensation the most are being excluded. But these
are the people who are exposed to systemic violence. I mean, I think
that's a good transition point where we can we talk a bit about the I
guess what you call that, you know, the word that which must never
be said in the victim's movement, and that's the taboo of victim blaming and
how it's it's you know, on the one hand, it's one thing to
say she wore a short skirt, she had it coming, but that's not
really what you're getting at. I think what you're getting at is that certain
types of victims are more predisposed to increased violence due to circumstances and environment,
etc. Yes, exactly. And I think once we know that, we
as a society have a moral responsibility to invest in crime prevention because no one
wants to be victimized, not a first time and definitely not a second,
third, fourth, fifth time. So when I think we need to we
have a responsibility to use that information, that knowledge to target programs, services
to help those who are the highest risk of victimization, and those are often
modernized communities in Canada, in particular the Aboriginal communities. Women are three times
more likely to be victimized victims of violence than non Aboriginal Canadians. That's a
problem and another, you know, fascinating points when you look at the Canadian
Victimization survey that comes out every four or five years, when they present the
data, they don't even present the territories. They present the ten provinces.
The argument is is that that's because the territories small population, the data is
collected differently. In a fact, up until fifteen years ago, they didn't
even measure victimization in the territories. It was only the ten provinces. But
you have to remember then that what you're doing is presenting a gross underestimation of
the victimization rate in the country when you only look at the ten provinces and
you exclude the territories, which as you and I know, are have in
particularly high proportion of Aboriginal people living there. It's it's yeah, it's such
a it's such a poor excuse to not include the territorial data. And what
you're doing is you're it's it's a it's a vicious circle there. You're further
the more you marginalize, the more they're gonna I mean, as you know,
the whole idea is it's a self reporting mechanism. Victims have to come
forward and be willing to to to report. And I think, by by
most professional estimates, um, two thirds of crime we're not even aware of.
But the more you alienate the territories, the more they don't report,
the more they're subjected to more and more violence. It's just it's it's a
no win proposition that needs to end. And that's that's why you need to
target your services to those who are the most vulnerable, the most needy,
in order to put an end to that spiral, that a circle, and
that I think is something that has to start. Well, I think there's
something has to start with the double government right the way, because one of
my largest, way most irritating points I find is that the Canada has a
responsibility to the unitetations. It's obviously it's it's a moral responsibility, not a
legal responsibility. But you know, we were behind the creation of the UN
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.
A whole piece on that on victim compensation and that member states, you know,
should make sure that these programs are available. So Canada then has a
responsibility to make sure that across the country these programs are available. And as
I said earlier, it's not the case. Why is it that in the
European Union, which is a union of sovereign states, they're able to make
that happen, but we cannot do it in a country like Canada. That
makes no sense. It's the only thing missing, I think his political will
and money to do it. Yeah, well, what's what's going well?
I mean what's going on there? I mean, you touch before on.
We need to be a little suspicious about who benefits when we adapt these this
legislation and policies. So there's there's many contradictions and in a lot of the
legislation in Canada. I mean you cite the Correction and Conditional Release Act,
which all of a sudden wants to introduce, which is called to bring you
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act bringing Fair Earnest to Victims, which is a
little odd in itself because that document really isn't about victims at all. And
then the same thing with the Bill of Rights, the recently adopted Victims Bill
of Rights. It says that all victims rights are guaranteed by the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. And yet when you go and you look, there's no
mention of victims rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I mean.
And so with all these contradictions, it makes it very, very difficult for
a victim or an advocate for victims to navigate the contradictions. Whose job is
it, then, is to sort out this confusion? But part of it's
our job, I think, as as critical citizens to stay aware of these
what's going on at what it means. I mean, clearly, the examples
you're naming were um textbook examples of putting a name on a bill and to
suggest that you're doing something for victims with really not doing anything for victims.
This goes back to playing lip service for victims that I mentioned earlier, which
is nothing new, not unique to Canada, exists in many countries. Um.
Right. The sex offender database in the United States is known as Megan's
Law. Correct, Yeah, right, and and and and you're right,
that's just putting a label on something that is really a tool for law enforcement.
Yes, yes, and to do it under the name of I'm doing
something for victims, aren't I a god good you know, elected representative.
Correct, this is what they do. But at the same time, what
what what victims really need? They're they're not doing anything. Um. So,
for example, you talk about the victims, the lack of enforceable rights
for victims here in Canada, that was a huge concern. There was a
long debate, loss of discussions, lots of papers went over it, and
finally when they came out, they just came out with the document which really
in many ways is nothing more than what was there before. A little bit
more, but nothing more, because you still don't have enforceable rights for victims.
Um. It would have been so easy to just add victims rights to
the criminal Code, as they had done back in the AG with victim impact
statements, make procedural rights that victims at certain moments in the criminal justice process
have a right to information or to consultation. That would have done it,
and and to include then at some measure of you know, what happens when
this doesn't happen? So what are the consequences when victims right access to information,
for example, is not respected? And there are examples on the plan
that we can find in the United States, for example, where victims have
participatory rights and the you know these it doesn't lead to a mistrial necessarily,
but it can mean that things are put on hold until the victim at least
has an opportunity to exercise their right. So that's that's one of the things
that I argue for, is at least participatory rights for victims because they're not
looking for decision making power. We're not looking to overthrow the criminal justice system
and give all power to victims. And you know that that exists, it's
called civil law. If that's what victims wanted, they would have gone running
to that a long time ago. And they don't because, as I said
before, crime is a violation of victims rights, but it's also an offense
against the state. And that's very important in perception of victims, that that
recognition by the society, by the collection, the group, larger group,
that it's wrong what happened, It should never have happened. We don't accept
that in our society. That is valuable. That's very important to victims and
they want that as well. So it's important that it's recognized as a crime
as well as a violation of their individual human rights, and therefore why they
should have some sort of special status other than a mere witness to a crime
against the state, Because it wasn't a crime against the state, it was
a crime against them. They experienced it so that it could we could have
done so much more. Unfortunately we haven't, but we can. We might
still get it in the future. I'm optimistic that we can still change the
system and make it more responsive to victims need. So let's let's unpack that
a little bit, Joanne, since since you brought it up, Um,
there are some other examples I think in the international criminal courts and in the
United States more more recently, I mean here in Canada. Um, really
that the victims impact on the criminal process comes towards the end that's sentencing to
be able to to to deliver a victims impact statement. But as you say,
there's other examples where you can have a victims have their own legal representative
participating at various stages in the process. And on top of that, all
the literature suggests that that victims don't really want to be the ones making the
decision on what happens to the offender. They're not necessarily looking for punishment and
retribution. What they're looking for is is to simply participate, which seems to
me to be a very unthreatening position. So to turn the corner, what
do you think is so threatening to the Canadian justice system that they have not
made enforceable victims rights part of the bill. That's a great question. It's
a great paper by edna Is written back in the nineties, Who was Afraid
of the Big Bad Victim? And it's exactly to that point, And that's
it. What are they afraid of? Essentially? I think what we're looking
at at a system because because what the response keeps on is that people the
government will focus on the rights of the offender, and the argument is if
we limit the frights of the offender, we will be giving rights to victims.
But that's not what it is. If you go back to the origin
the history of criminal law, criminal justice process, originally it was like a
civil process. You had the victim versus the accused and there was a judge.
Gradually, the state came to play a bigger role and represent the victim,
to the point where the state completely took over and the victim became a
witness to a crime against the state, as we said, and essentially then
you had this omnipotent state against the accused, a citizen, which is why
it became so important to introduce rights for the accused, and hence the Bill
of Rights in Canada and in many countries United States as well, to make
sure to curb, to limit the power of the state, to reduce the
risk of abuses of power. That explains that those rights apply to all of
us and should should not should be respected. They're vital. We don't want
to reduce those rights. What we do want is for the state to take
a step back and say there's room beside me here for the victim. That
it's still the prosecutor plays a major role, but there is room beside them
for the victim or the victim's lawyer. And this is for example, what
we saw, or I saw when I was at the International Criminal Court,
and it was it was fastcinating to watch. It's literally at the table beside
the prosecution, there was a table with the lawyers for victims representing victims,
and they had a voice in the criminal justice process. At different moments.
They could bring in questions, they could raise their concerns. If it was
a legitimate interest of the victims, their client was involved, they had an
opportunity to speak, and it was fascinating just to hear that voice in the
courtroom. It didn't change the decision making process. It was still the judges
who would decide at the end of the day what would happen. But you
heard at least the arguments of the victim's legal representatives. You heard at least
the voice of the victim in that decision making process, and that, as
far as I'm concerned, that makes all the difference. That's what this is
about. So I was quite fascinated by my experiences at the International Criminal Court,
and I think it's something that would be very interesting to see in countries
like Canada. There's also parts you know, in the States to some extent
already with the Crime Victims Rights Act for the at the federal level, at
least victims can as well have legal representation when their right to participate that is
for information for example, is not respected in the criminal justice process. So
again, an adversarial system where there is an ability for victims to have legal
representation, where they have rights in the criminal justice process. And I think
that's the beginning. If you give victims rights, the rest will follow.
You will see that they can have legal representation, It will be worth while
hiring a loyal to represent their interest in the process, and they will begin
to have a voice, they will begin to be respected and seeing as something
other than a witness to a crime against the state. Well, you know,
it's almost like the critics are fundamentally tripped up, even by the architecture
of the court. I mean, I was in Ottawa last week. I
had a tour of the Supreme Court of Canada. Frankly because I was walking
down the street and somebody said, do you want a free tour? And
why wouldn't I want a free tour? And so yeah, you get in
there, and it's it's a triangle, triangular shape. Yes, there's there's
the judge at the head of the triangle, and then there's to the left
and the right there is the defense and the Crown. And that's the way
it's set up. And all I think anyone is saying is between the defense
and the Crown have a third bench, which is another legal representative at certain
point to express an opinion or a view, or to ask a question,
and I don't see why that is so objectional to the criminal process, well,
the lawyers among us, because it's an adversarial system, what we're saying
already, like I said, an international coming for which is a hybrid court.
And in the inquisitorial procedures that you'll see in France, in the Netherlands
another legal tradition, and there that you can have civil parties and you can
add as many parties as you want in fact to the criminal justice process because
each party there it's inquisitorial, so they direct their communication. It all goes
to the judge. Whereas here in our adversarial which is like a dualistic system,
you have two sides, the crown in the defense, and in between
them the judge that acts almost like a referee, observes and just make sure
that the rules are observed, you know, in this process. So the
argument, by from a legal standpoint is that in this dualistic system, when
you add a third party, it throws it out of kilter, it throws
it out of balance. So that's a question of you know, law.
Again, you're seeing in many ways that there there's a whole other discussion in
law about um similarities between the inquisitorial and adversarial procedures, and in many ways
they become the growing more and more similar. I think that it would be.
And again we've seen in the United States with the Crime Victims Rights Act,
you can add a legal representative for victims without sacrificing the quality of the
procedures or the justicess, you know, the justice that's being sought. At
the end of the day. It would be ridiculous to say the International Criminal
Court is less just because they have standard legal representatives for victims. So there
is a way to balance these different concerns. Yes, should want to let's
back it up a bit, because I think we missed a step and I
think it would be fair to to listeners to explain this a little bit.
And that's that's talking about victims needs. The Canadian attorney you cite Alan Young
mentions that when when a lot of what we assumed were what victims wanted,
the policies and legislate legislative actions were not based on research, and so a
lot of what was developed was was um on victims needs, was based on
based on stereotypical assumptions. What do victims really want? Well, what's interesting
is growing literature looking at victims needs and comparing them to human needs. Hey,
I don't you probably remember Masilo back in the psychology days that he talks
about is different human needs. Well, philosophers have taken that now further.
Um, But you know, Maslow, what he said is still important,
this idea that we have an iierarchy of needs, some of them are basic
and fundamental for us survival. And what we see is there are a lot
of similarities between what victims talk about in terms of their need um, you
know, need to survive, a financial needs, emotional needs, etc.
Um. And these basic human needs need to feel accepted, need to feel
recognized, validated. Again. So I think that when you draw this comparison
to victims needs and human needs, it shows you the um, you how
fundamental it is for the well being of the individual as well as the well
being of society, because I think if we're able to address people's needs,
I think will come to a healthier place in our society as well. Yeah,
I think I think a lot of the Canadian literature aligns with what I've
read in the States, particularly coming out of the Vera Institute that basically says
the five things that victims want our answers. They want their voices heard,
they want a sense of control. They want a sense that the repair can
be repair can be restored for the harm where possible, and that what happened
to them won't happened again. And I think that's very basic. No,
no, we're in there is mentioned punishment. Yeah, it's validation really in
many ways, Yes, and that's key, and I think that that opens
it up to a whole new discussion, for example, about repairative justice,
which is another topic I write about in the book. Well, let's talk
about that reparative justice, restorative justice, because it's a very interesting element of
victimology. Yeah. Well, I use the word reparative justice rather than restorative
because one of the things that we saw in victimology was there was a lot
of pushback from victims groups, particularly all about two thousands, we can say,
when restorative justice movement became very, very strong, and they said this
was a offender oriented it was more about offenders than about victims. And I
think that it's important to recognize that the roots of restorative justice are with whether
what's the word offender, people who work with offenders but that there are elements
in it that can be very important and valuable for victims and resonate with victims,
that correspond with victims needs. And I think that we need to have
a victim centered approach to the topic, and that means sometimes using our own
words, our own vocabulary. For example, in restorative justice, there's a
whole discussion about using not talking about crime, but talking about conflict, for
example, and that was something that a lot of victims groups were saying,
Hey, but that's offensive, it's a crime, don't don't evaluate it,
because that was very important to them that that recognition of that. I said
it before, that that societal condemnation of an act as something we don't agree.
We don't want that in our society, that kind of behavior. And
so I think that a victim centered approach, we can change our vocabulary.
We don't talk about conflicts necessarily, but we recognize something as a crime.
And so I think that that's good to develop our own victim centered approach to
restorative justice and hence call it something different, to make sure that we're distinct
and we can differentiate between the two. So I talk about reparative justice and
the focus on reparation, and reparation is a broad term can mean many different
things. It can mean financial reparation, which in the legal system we often
unfortunately see it taking back to it can also largely mean rehabilitation of the victim.
And I think that's where we DW I draw a link at least with
the state compensation schemes, victims support, etc. What can we do to
help the victim heal well? And that's that's interesting because because as you note,
in a lot of these reparative restorative programs, again they were quickly co
opted by the state as a means for their own self interest with and excuse
me, and by by doing that, totally shafting victims. Yeah, I
mean, why isn't for example, that these compensation schemes you have to buy
and large not sometimes it's two years, but largely it's one year to make
a request. Why talk about for example, victims of sexual assault, it
can take years if ever for them to report it to police. Um So
if I take years before they're at the point where they can a actually ask
realize that what happened to them is a crime and that they may be eligible
for compensation, they may be able to get some sort of help with seeing
a psychologist, for example, because again often we think about these things in
terms of money. All they just want money. Now, in Quebec many
places in Canada, seeing a psychologist is very very difficult, and most people
end up paying for it themselves. It's not easy to pay one hundred and
fifty three hundred dollars an hour. Psychiatrists are included in medical in the Quebec
Medicaid the system, but a psychologist is not, and the ones that are
available in the local health public health service are overworked, long waiting lists,
very difficult to see them. So often victims find that they have to have
use private services or which then, which is why the compensation is helpful from
the state to pay for those private services if they want to see a psychologist.
We're just talking about a psychologist, not now becoming rich, you know
right. We have to put it in perspective, just for the benefit of
our listeners. When we're talking about the restorative or reparative justice, we're talking
really about a non criminal procedure by which the victim and the offender get together
and there's a mediation process. Yes, that's and this is an alternative to
say or or a compliment in some cases too incarceration. Can you tell us
where this, particularly in some examples, works and where it doesn't work very
well? There are a lot of different ways to do it. What you
said, Mediation is probably the most popular one where people can exit from the
criminal justice process and go into a mediation. Victim offender mediation or victim offender
dialogue is another way they say it sometimes um so that they can discuss and
and and and talk about how the crime impact them. And then there's the
option to go back into the criminal justice system for the punishment or go right
through the criminal justice system and then, for example, once the offender is
in the correctional service to then participate in victim offender dialogue. So there are
different ways of doing it. It all depends on where you are and what's
available and where the victim is, because not everyone is immediately ready to meet
the offenders. And again from a victim centered point of view, this type
of dialogue can happen soon after the offense. It could happen years after the
offense. It all depends on where the victim is and whether or not they
want to participate in this say, it's victim centered, replying to their responding
to their needs. And it may be that the victim's not ready to discuss
it with the offender. That that's a big step right away, but it
might be at one point. And one of the most interesting programs I know
is it works with victims of sexual assault, where they it's included in the
therapy with victims the possibility of mediation with the offender. Now, if we
know that often sexual assault, we're looking at the victim, as we said,
knows the offender. It might be a family member for example, so
it's someone that person knows well. And the victims who participated in this their
therapists which suggested to them if they felt the victim was ready for it.
And for the victims, they were very very pleased. They were very proud
that their therapist had suggested it because to them it was almost like a milestone
they had managed to get so far in their healing process that they were able
to the therapist had the belief in them that they were able to confront or
to meet with their offender. And that is one example where I see that
reparative justice can be used in a therapeutic way that's valuable for the victim.
Again, it's not going to work for everyone. It's not going to work
at the same time for everyone. We have to tailor it. It has
to be a voluntary situation ration for the victim and the offender. Two.
We can't force anyone to do this, but I think it's important that we
provide that possibility because right now, the policy in much of Canada is that
when it comes to violence against women, restorative justice or reparative justice off the
table. They won't let it happen. There's a very very strong women's movement
who's afraid, in particular cases of domestic violence, that after the women's movements
worked so so hard to take domestic violence out of the private sphere and put
it into the public sphere and to criminalize this, that victim offender dialogue would
be a step back and privatizing it again. Well, I can certainly see
that argument and getting back I think you mentioned this, but one of the
examples you mentioned, I think is in northern community communities. The idea of
using a circle sentencing process where I guess the offender, the victim, the
friends and families, the community is even be involved in that, which seems
to be a restorative process. Yes, yes, they're with a circle sentence,
and you go through the entire criminal standard criminal justice process just until after
the conviction and at the moment of determining the sentence. At that point they
open up and they bring input in from the other community members, and that
can include the victim as well, where they talk about okay, well,
now that we've the person's been found guilty of this crime, what should we
do about it? That's it. So that's another example of how this works.
But to get back to the I think that it's important to not have
blanket policies excluding reparative justice for certain types of victimization, because I think that's
being very paternalistic. I'm all for protecting victims. We don't want to put
them in situations where they risk the secondary victimization. But to say categorically know
what you want to do is wrong isn't right either. That's another victimization,
and unfortunately that's often what happens. At least one of my students was looking
at restorative justice in cases of serious violent crime, and some of the victims
in Canada and in Belgium and some of the victims were really felt embarrassed,
and sometimes the reactions had been very negative towards them when they expressed an interest
to meet in a mediation setting with the offender. No, I mean,
I can totally understand that. I mean, it's it's not a one size
fits all solution at all. It's so personal that you can't impose on somebody.
If somebody doesn't a victim doesn't want to engage in the process, that's
it. It shouldn't be imposed on them, right, And they think maybe
they want to do it later, that's fine too. They should have that
option of coming back to it because and that's the beauty of reparative justice.
It's flexible. It can be at any moment in the criminal justice process or
years afterwards, and that's the beauty of it. And then that it should
be there too. And the idea of giving victims choices as well options is
also very important in their healing process. I mentioned before the example of victims
of sexual violence feeling empowered when they when they realize that they were they were
at a point in their healing process that they could confront their offender um And
just the idea that I can make a choice. I can I can decide
because victimization in many ways is taking the power away from the individual, and
much of their healing process is finding their power back, and by providing them
with options, you're helping them in that healing process rEFInd their sense of control
and power. So in the book, you conclude that that basically we've seen
three approaches to reform. The one is one is what we're just talking about
now as sort of a non criminal proceeding. The other is to improve the
plight um um of victims without changing the system. And you argue that this
fails to this fails because it fails to alleviate the problem of secondary victims victimization.
So the only way forward is changing the status, by which by granting
a procedural rights to victims. So how do you see us moving forward in
that direction? In Canada, crime is the violation of the victim's human rights
as well as an offense against the state. We do that, we're now
saying, okay, so now we have a human being and the victim is
a subject, not just an object of the law, not just the person
who will experience something, but now a person with a legal personality who has
a right to be heard in the criminal justice process. I think that it
starts with that. Something we've seen in the European Union, for example,
and they're directors from twenty fifteen. They clearly say in the preamble that crime
is a violation of victim's human rights as well as an offense against the state.
And once you've established that, then you um have a You have to
include victims, give them some sort of status in the process other than that
as a witness, and I'll give them participatory rights. Again, if they're
not enforcible rights. We've seen that for the last twenty thirty years. They're
not rights. And I guess the big the big argument that opponents would put
up is, let's take this case. Someone is murdered and the family of
the victim has full participatory rights, and they argue to forgive and exonerate the
murderer, and the state would then argue, well, that may take away
the threat from you, but it doesn't take away the threat to society.
Therefore, victim or victims family, secondary victim, you have no rights.
No, no, Remember I did an excellent example. Remember, crime is
a violation of the victim's human rights as well as an offense against the state.
So you may very well feel that you can forgive for the violation of
your human rights. However, there still stands the offense against the state,
and that justifies the intervention by the state and the criminal justice process. So
we allow these things in tandem, is what you would be is what we
would be arguing for in the case of allowing the participation of the participation of
victims. Essentially, you have to bear the two in mind, and that's
why you need a role for the prosecutor the state, and you need a
role for the victim as well in the ideal situation when you recognize victims as
subjects people before the law. So that I don't think, I mean,
that's the argument. People often say, Oh, but that's completely restorative,
and it's not the two. Again, if we're looking at an offense that
is so minor that we say, you know what, the significance for the
state is not there. If the victim is able to come to an agreement
with the offense, or we think it's it's it's fine, and we can
leave it at that. And that's what we often do with young offenders.
And alternative sanctions. That's where restorative justice has been very popular for the last
ten twenty years. Actually in youth courts, yes, right, for example,
and there we seed. So that's exactly what we say. As long
as the victim is able to come to an agreement with the offender, we
as a state of society find a significance. So mine are so unimportant that
we don't think that it necessitates, in addition a reaction by the state that
is enough. And the other extreme is where you say no, it is
so important that regardless of the re evaluation by the victim, we feel as
the state has a responsibility that that has to be recognized and that criminal justice
intervention is required given the gravity the impact on our society. Joanne, I
want to emphasize what a great book this is. I said to you personally,
I think there's some agencies in Canada who will rename remain nameless, who
should just take their content down off their websites and replace it with your book,
because I think it's so fantastic and informative, and it's got all the
information in one place. Sometimes you have to do so much rooting around find
this kind of information. Anything In conclusion, you'd you'd like us to have
as a takeaway from from your book and also your work in victimology, recognizing
victims victimization as a violation of victims human rights, give victims enforceable rights,
and and the rest will follow. I think once we have we turn that
page, we're going to be on the road to real change where there is
an appreciation for the victim as well as respect for the criminal justice system and
a real improvement because right now it's disconnected in a way from the reality of
the victims, and the victim suffer as a result. Well, Joe and
I want to thank you so much for joining us today. We we like
to end things with something we call and this is just a fun thing.
It's called like a lightning round. It's to get to know our guest a
little a little better. We've had quite a heavy conversation on victimology, So
just a couple of quick questions and to as I say, to help us
get to know you better. Can you tell our listeners what book you're currently
reading. You've probably got about ten Oh gosh me like you're looking at like
for free time books? Right, sure, yeah, yep, you're so
much reading for work. I have to sign my bed let the camus that
I haven't even gotten further than page one on. But it's one of those
things on my reading list that I've picked up and I keep telling myself I'm
going to be reading, but most of my reading it ends up being for
work. So the last thing is I think on the Handbook of Forgiveness.
I think that was the last thing I sat down and read. Can you
tell us two things that we might not find on your about you on your
LinkedIn profile? Two things that you won't find one even though it's on my
profile anymore? Um, goodness me? Uh got yoga? Yoga? Yes,
discovered yoga three years ago. Let's see, that's one thing. Fantastic
anything there you go? Yoga? Okay, yoga? It is. What
was the first concert you ever saw? The first concert I ever saw?
Oh? Tim Curry? Oh here? Where where was that? Toronto?
Yeah? Toronto? What's it called on Young Front Street? There? Corner
of Front Street and Young Street at that Oh it's still there, the concert
hall? Yeah? I know, yeah, I know, which. Wow,
I am envious. What a great answer. I was thirteen. That's
going back in time. Yeah, do you have a favorite TV show that
you like to binge watch. Right now, it's CNN. I understand that
it's hill. I never used to watch CNN. However the last year that
has changed. It's almost like a reality show. Yes, yes, a
very dark reality show. Very dark. Yes' where's your favorite spot to have
lunch in Montreal? There's so many Well this wasn't lunch, this was dinner,
and I have to say I was very impressed. We went to a
place called La Ponton in Griffintown, which is a tasting menu and it was
fantastic. It's a little place that you probably will walk by if you don't
have the abbas because the sign isn't even big. But I've looked it up
in advance and we went there. And the name goes back to the rumor
that apparently in that neighborhood, Griffintown is the old Irish working class neighborhood.
Of course that way back in the nineteenth century there was prostitution and whatnot in
that neighborhood and there was a prostitute who have died in that area. Ergo
the fontme the ghosts that still apparently walks the streets anyway, so when you're
there, candles everywhere, lots of atmosphere. But the food was fantastic,
absolutely magnificent. So I would recommend back to anyone the ft Yes, well,
Joanna is the perfect place to end. I thank you so much for
being the guest on the show today and and it's been very informative and and
I hope you have a great afternoon. Thank you, thanks the imitation.
Bye bye. Wow there Sula, So that fan Field exposed a lagwa prison
just being unders still got written. I sets just too much responsive building people
me a baby room and busy Dean Best and Colin Cadre little more. But
Genie always gonna need an object. I'm always like being my geo. And
Rody is pymute your love. I never