Wrt to violent acts committed against another person, the victim has a right to retribution and reparation. It's not just about safety or self actualization for the rapist.
There’s a lot to be said here, but I’m also someone who has been the victim of violent crime, including rape. I agree that any notion of justice has to contend with accountability, and that’s ostensibly the purpose of the entire “front end” of our legal system (and, it should be noted, that accountability isn’t what it produces, or does well at all). And to be sure, survivors aren’t a monolith, but in my case, the eternal punishment of the person who harmed me doesn’t help me at all. Punishment, at some point, should end and allow for people to redeem themselves. If we don’t allow for that, what is the point of punishment in the first instance?
It should also be noted that in our legal system, it’s not really about the survivor at all — the state has their own agenda, and when those differ from those of the person who was harmed, they often disregard what that person wants. I’ve seen that happen on more than a few occasions.
Retribution is different from accountability. But I think the point of retribution is to vindicate the victim, redemption is separate as that is a perpetrator/harmdoer centered concept.
In the criminal legal system yes, the state is the plaintiff and the prosecutor represents justice/society, not the victim, as a "crime" is an offense against society.
A tort is an offense against a person and assault is both a crime and a tort. So victims can also use the civil legal system where they can be the plaintiff instead of a mere witness. This is one reason civil court is a better venue for redress than criminal court.
I certainly agree that they're different, but I'm also not sure that what brings healing is retribution. I think what many survivors want is for the person who harmed them to acknowledge that harm, to try to make amends for it in some way, and to work to change, etc. Retribution doesn't really scratch any of those itches, and I think what you'll find is that even for people who "successfully" go through the criminal system as survivors find that even when they "win" they're not really made whole by the process.
So I'm not sure that retribution is what most people who are harmed want -- for example, the person who raped them to be raped back. Speaking for myself, I would be horrified if that were done in my name.
And, I'm agnostic about whether civil court is a better venue -- certainly not if the person is judgment proof to begin with. Even there, however, even if you win you're not going to get accountability, but liability. You get a judgment: money. And money is nice, but I'm not really sure many aspects of our legal system -- civil or criminal -- are particularly well-equipped to adjudicate cases of sexual harm.
Many meaning not all, but not none. Many survivors don't want retribution, but many do (I personally found it healing). I can't possibly know what most people want, so I will stick to using many. I would be uninterested in apology, acknowledgement or change from the rapist, I'd expect many would feel the same, while many would feel as you do.
Yes civil has many shortcomings. But a victim/plaintiff can approve or reject settlements, a victim/witness cannot. Additionally, with the cdc estimating the cost of rape to be $100k for victims, money would help alleviate their burden. In countries whose justice systems have a rehabilitative/restorative approach to justice, victims are also taken care of and can apply for compensation including pain and suffering money from the government.
Wrt to violent acts committed against another person, the victim has a right to retribution and reparation. It's not just about safety or self actualization for the rapist.
There’s a lot to be said here, but I’m also someone who has been the victim of violent crime, including rape. I agree that any notion of justice has to contend with accountability, and that’s ostensibly the purpose of the entire “front end” of our legal system (and, it should be noted, that accountability isn’t what it produces, or does well at all). And to be sure, survivors aren’t a monolith, but in my case, the eternal punishment of the person who harmed me doesn’t help me at all. Punishment, at some point, should end and allow for people to redeem themselves. If we don’t allow for that, what is the point of punishment in the first instance?
It should also be noted that in our legal system, it’s not really about the survivor at all — the state has their own agenda, and when those differ from those of the person who was harmed, they often disregard what that person wants. I’ve seen that happen on more than a few occasions.
Retribution is different from accountability. But I think the point of retribution is to vindicate the victim, redemption is separate as that is a perpetrator/harmdoer centered concept.
In the criminal legal system yes, the state is the plaintiff and the prosecutor represents justice/society, not the victim, as a "crime" is an offense against society.
A tort is an offense against a person and assault is both a crime and a tort. So victims can also use the civil legal system where they can be the plaintiff instead of a mere witness. This is one reason civil court is a better venue for redress than criminal court.
I certainly agree that they're different, but I'm also not sure that what brings healing is retribution. I think what many survivors want is for the person who harmed them to acknowledge that harm, to try to make amends for it in some way, and to work to change, etc. Retribution doesn't really scratch any of those itches, and I think what you'll find is that even for people who "successfully" go through the criminal system as survivors find that even when they "win" they're not really made whole by the process.
So I'm not sure that retribution is what most people who are harmed want -- for example, the person who raped them to be raped back. Speaking for myself, I would be horrified if that were done in my name.
And, I'm agnostic about whether civil court is a better venue -- certainly not if the person is judgment proof to begin with. Even there, however, even if you win you're not going to get accountability, but liability. You get a judgment: money. And money is nice, but I'm not really sure many aspects of our legal system -- civil or criminal -- are particularly well-equipped to adjudicate cases of sexual harm.
Many meaning not all, but not none. Many survivors don't want retribution, but many do (I personally found it healing). I can't possibly know what most people want, so I will stick to using many. I would be uninterested in apology, acknowledgement or change from the rapist, I'd expect many would feel the same, while many would feel as you do.
Yes civil has many shortcomings. But a victim/plaintiff can approve or reject settlements, a victim/witness cannot. Additionally, with the cdc estimating the cost of rape to be $100k for victims, money would help alleviate their burden. In countries whose justice systems have a rehabilitative/restorative approach to justice, victims are also taken care of and can apply for compensation including pain and suffering money from the government.
Misspelled words. I could feel you
I read this twice. I g CB oilfield feel you
Beautifully written and poignant Guy. You never disappoint