Giving crime victims the right to meet with their offenders: Virginia legislative developments

I concur with Texas, that it is a basic human right for victims to meet with their offenders in the presence of a SKILLED facilitator who encourages a safe, respectful environment and empowers both parties to be heard and take an active role in the reparation process. Youth Transformation Center in Colorado has, along with many other passionate and dedicated organizations worldwide, seen remarkable, sometimes miraculous, results.

In my view, the "justice system" and civil authority should be a facilitator of justice. Civil authority has the unique responsibility to restrain offenders by certain means but all the "institutions" in communities including families, places of worship, religious and civic organizations of all sorts have the moral authority the civil authority does not possess and cannot possess. In other words, the role of civil authority complements the role of moral authority. Victims and offender needs ought to be facilitated by civil authority with proper security and protection while providing for moral authority to serve the other needs of victims and offenders. In some cases, "surrogate victims" provide outstanding assistance for "dialogue" and for healing when it is not possible for the true victim(s) to be present by their own free will rather than the will of the civil authority.

I firmly believe, if the victim wishes, be alloowed to see, meet and question her attacker. <br />I support this Bill.

It seems to me that members of the Virginia General Assembly will allow RJ practices in prison only if the practice offers a guarantee to reduce the cost of incarceration. If the system isn't broken, don't fix it. It is ard for them to see the problems of victims and offenders if it does not effect them personally. You and I know the system is broken and we need to work to remedy causation of the human problem, but legislators see the problem from a cost - benefit perspective.

Hello, Judy. I agree with you to a point. You are right that legislators often look at the bottom line first (i.e. the cost) when making decisions about corrections, for example. However, they are also very influenced by the views of crime victims, for one, and two, the views of their constituents. I know this because in California I worked on staff for three legislators. <br /> <br />The impact of the views of crime victims can not be underestimated. The challenge is for victims to be educated about restorative justice, if they do not know of its benefits, and to be mobilized. Often, as you know, so many victims do not know restorative justice exists. That's a problem and a challenge. <br /> <br />However, in the work that I have done over the last nine years, in particular, victims are increasingly supporting RJ and they are asking for the chance to tell their stories. Who will give them access to those they need to reach? <br /> <br />Organizations who seek to reform our justice system, and justice systems around the globe, must realize the power of the victim's voice when they are advocating for change. <br /> <br />Actually the cost-benefit argument can be made for restorative justice. It is cost effective and the benefits for victims and communities are far greater than the benefits of the traditional justice system. <br /> <br />Lisa Rea <br />Rea Consulting <br />Government Relations <br />Victims-Driven Restorative Justice <br />California, U.S.

I agree with the notion that victims should have the option to meet with their offenders if they so chose to do so. I am currently taking a victimology class and we are having this discussion, as we are in a chapter where this question is asked, and there are many pros and cons with this raised question...also had some info &amp; input from Lisa Rea...how cool!

Alfonso, I don't recall being in touch but glad we have been! It's good you are having this discussion in a class on victimology. Where are you? How has that discussion been going? What pro's and con's are being raised? <br /> <br />It's my position that giving crime victims the option (the right) to meet is just that an option, one option. There are no negatives to it since it allows the victim to choose whether to participate in a RJ process or not (i.e. face to face meeting or perhaps a &quot;circle&quot; with others). <br /> <br />It should be up to the victim to decide whether to go forward. However, if the option to participate in a restorative justice meeting is not available it denies crime victims the chance to ask questions of the offender(s). By not allowing this type of dialogue it is potentially denying crime victims the chance to heal---on some level. <br />It also denies the offender the chance to take more direct personal responsibility for his actions. <br /> <br />Lisa Rea <br />Rea Consulting <br />California, U.S. <br />

I would like to see people who have been victimized, or a person who they have suggested (surrogate) have the right to meet with the person who has brought them harm. <br />So long as there are safeguards and other protective measures to reduce further harm to either party, then it should be able to occur at any time to suit the person victimized. <br />I have strongly encouraged a victim's brother or even family to meet in a circle when the victim has felt too afraid. That option should also be provided. It ought to be driven by the victim. <br />Victimology should be taught in all correctional settings to challenge offending behaviors as this could be fruitful for us all.

Absolutely, Brian. I particularly agree with your comment about making RJ available to victims at any time. There should be no statute of limitations on when victims can access RJ services and thus participate in RJ. <br /> <br />I agree with you also that sometimes surrogates are necessary and a victim can participate in a victim-offender dialogue (or a larger circle) with surrogates. The PFI programme Sycamore Tree is an excellent example of a successful RJ programme that has used surrogates (i.e. actual victims and actual offenders but unrelated cases). <br /> <br />For many years I have used the phrase &quot;victims-driven restorative justice.&quot; I still think it is good to stress that RJ should be driven by the victim. RJ is, after all, still about putting the victim in the center of the criminal justice system. Often, this gets forgotten. <br /> <br />Lisa Rea <br />California, U.S.

I think that it's not unorthodox to offer the possibility of meeting, but it would be hard for either party. I mean, how do you moderate something like that as an officer of the law or a lawyer? Closure is needed for victims to move on, studies show, but gaining the emotional stability to get to that point is a difficult thing to put into law.