VICTIM ADVOCATES:

WHERE WE WERE
WHERE WE ARE
AND WHERE WE NEED TO BE!

By Brett M. Macgargle, MPA.

WHERE WE WERE…
For nearly twenty years I've worked with crime victims in various capacities and have seen drastic changes for the betterment of victim rights and services. Back in the early 80s it was a pretty tough sell amongst my conservative criminal justice cohorts to change and open up the system to allow victims a definable voice, even though at the time, President Reagan published a bold Task Force Report outlining many progressive recommendations to improve the plight of victims (10). 

Why the hard sell? Like many in the criminal justice profession, we thought we were the guardians of the process, and to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollar, we needed to shepherd the offender along in the criminal justice system, seeking retribution over reparation without outside interference from the public. 

It was assumed, since we were educated, well-trained and experienced in the complexities of the system, that we were best suited to create and implement the necessary changes in procedure and laws governing the criminal justice system. We were fooled into thinking that we were the experts at changing the system from within, but found out the hard way through lawsuits filed by victims and the public that our coveted system was flawed, seriously flawed. 

This thinking is based on a system created by our forefathers who crafted their system based on British Common Law, which adopted a process that dictates when a crime happens, it's a crime against the King. Pared down here in America, when a crime happens it is a crime against the state (Siegel, 1992). This led us down the path to creating a system that can be isolated, protected, and often perceived by the public as a massive bureaucracy that is unpentetratable and misunderstood, especially by those who are hurt by crime. 

Of course, it wasn't always like this. Centuries ago, before a system existed in any formal context, when a crime was committed, it was assumed that the offender righted the wrong and made good at the community level. This principle was loosely based on the code reflecting "an eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth" doctrine well documented by Kings Hammurabi and Sumerian written about 1750B.C. (1). Even the early origins of Anglo-Saxon law (prior to 1066) viewed crimes as personal wrongs, and therefore offenders were to repay the victim and make good the harm (11). 

Some have grown up in an era where these same principles commanded our daily existence and we are striving to get back to this practice. Just look at all the literature and programs popping up relegating the Restorative Justice Model, which strives to repair the harm caused by crime and involve all those at the local level who have been affected. This model has great potential to make fundamental changes in our current system, making it more responsive to victims, preventing future criminality, and putting the solution to crime where it actually happens, in the local community (2) (13). 

Don't get me wrong. I am not professing restorative justice is the panacea to cure the ills of our current process or to replace the courthouse. It does have underlying themes that can be more satisfying to victims and augment the current state-run system. As it is currently applied, restorative justice does tend to leave some victims out of the process because it is driven by a host of trigger events such as reporting the crime, identifying the offender, the offender's willingness to participate and admit culpability, etc. (5).

The state should still play a dominant role in addressing the needs of victims that cannot be satisfied by restorative justice principles that rely on the offender or community.

As social service professionals we complain so much about losing our sense of community, which contributes to social anomie, leading some to seek out a lifestyle of crime (11). Why aren't we moving quickly enough to harness the attributes of this cutting edge, back-to-basics restorative model? I speculate it may well be because the public and conservative professionals haven't completely seen the merits. 

Generally, politicians, the media, and career criminal justice staff are supportive and make changes when backlash from the public is not perceivably possible and failure is avoidable. Such nihiIity is common when social change is touted by a few. It takes the few to multiply numbers and constantly educate change-makers on the benefits of change in order for actual change to take place. 

Throughout the past two decades, we have been warned, reminded, and continuously forced to change our ways, but victims are still not justifiably satisfied. It is ironic that many of the early recommendations in President Reagan's Victims of Crime Task Force Report were revisited in 1998 through publication in New Directions From the Field: Victim Rights in the 21st Century (9). I remember sitting across the table in 1997 with a host of other highly respected victim advocates from across the country discussing with U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno many of the same suggestions we struggled with in the early 80s.

In the past two decades, justice agencies have adopted practices carved out from best practices in state-of-the-art jurisdictions. Over half the states have been trained in these practices and changed their philosophical foundations and mission statements governing the way they do business that is considered victim friendly. Other states have followed in the same measure to the point where providing at least solid, basic information and involvement is guaranteed to victims, but more is needed (6).

Years ago, like many who worked in victim services, when I was professing the merits of improving victim rights, I often heard from my colleagues that I was soft on crime, a touchy-feely person, and victims only slow the process down and interject too much emotion in the decision-making components of our system. Somewhere along the way, through countless college courses, on-the-job trainings, and being schooled by our astute colleagues and supervisors, we diminished our innate ability to care and listen to those who are hurt by crime. 

All justice folks know this, especially in the ranks of law enforcement: We can become callous to the horrors of crime, desensitized to the endless over-detailed stories from countless victims and general citizenry. As a psyche-coated protection measure, we develop this common trait well-known and much documented in the profession (8).

It is true, victims do slow the process down and do tend to make us feel their trauma when they involve themselves, but we learned this is a good thing. Victim involvement tends to humanize the process and reminds us that crime is a complex problem that affects all of us at every level in the community. It's not a problem that a system can methodically and sequentially deal with holistically, but a complexity that has a multitude of problems related to acts of criminality.


WHERE WE ARE…
Throughout the past two decades victims have demanded and created a lot of changes in the process. Practitioners in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, responding to throngs of complaints, made significant changes to address victims' needs. Victims' Bill of Rights legislation and changes in states' constitutions have opened up the system allowing victims greater access to information and involvement. This has eased some of the pain associated with crime and has reduced some of the frustration leading to revictimization often caused by the realities of our past and current process. The positive changes have brought forth a surge in the creation of victim advocate offices and personnel who are highly trained to assist victims throughout the system.

Our job has been much easier compared to the pioneers in the 1960s and 70s who carved out the victims' rights movement along with the civil and women's social movements. Many throughout the decades laid the foundation so my contemporary colleagues and I could make changes along with victims and the public. Folks like Jim Rowland, Anne Seymour, Dean Kilpatrick, David Beatty, Trudie Gregory, Susan Laurence, Sharon English, Bob Preston, Janis Lord Harris, Marlene Young, (and numerous others that I left out) have forged a tough battle of changing minds, public policy, and law relating to victim rights. They were able to gather and combine the necessary resources and talent from across the country that was needed to accomplish great things in service to victims, and they should be commended. 

In the early days, politicians, social service allies, and the media were apprehensive about sweeping changes to include victims, but now they are fighting for first place in line to speak about the merits of victim rights. This mammoth change was created from a phenomenon known as social change that evolves from progressive thought and actions that combine forces of bravery, foresight, tenacity, and kindness towards understanding and listening to those who are harmed. Victim advocates have always been true laborers of constituent services, listening and acting on the behalf of others.


WHERE WE NEED TO BE…
We have come a long way, but much work is still needed. The profession of victim advocacy is in great need of a philosophical shift. Responding to a victim's needs, after the trauma, is just part of the answer to healing the wounds of crime. Victim advocates primarily deal in a reactionist mode, helping victims after the crime occurs; this is completely necessary and admirable. This is our primary goal and we've done it well! 

Now victim advocates, who have accomplished so much, must extend their talents toward preventing victimization from ever happening. We already do a lot of work in the arena of preventing revictimization, but we must tender our efforts towards primary prevention, working with the young, at-risk population to stop them from becoming perpetrators altogether, stopping victimization before it starts. In the past we have provided some effort towards this end, but we need much more.

We know for a fact that some youths exhibit early antisocial behavior signals. Many times, the young - who are at-risk of offending - are experiencing constant abuse, neglect, and hardship. This creates an environment ripe for conversion from victim to perpetrator. Domestic violence provides a stark, vivid example of the slow conversion process. A child who grows up experiencing or observing the ill effects of a violent home learns this violent behavior provides a mechanism to deal with their own victimization. There are certain risk factors in the environment or in the individual that predict an increased likelihood of developing delinquency (12). Risk factors are broken down into five categories: community, individual, peer group, school related, and family (4). 

Make no mistake, not all children who experience violence learn to use violence, but become productive, contributing, and caring people who lead good lives and hurt no one. Research has shown us that there are a number of protective factors that provide a buffer against risk factors that cause delinquency and future adult criminality. These include individual, social bonding, healthy beliefs, and clear standards of behavior (12).

It is those who exhibit the classic signs of aggression, isolation, and non-conforming behavior that we must consider applying our talents and resources to curb the development of an antisocial lifestyle. The earlier the intervention occurs, the more and better chances we have at helping curb future victimization. We know the further a child penetrates the juvenile justice system the more likely his or her offending behavior will escalate and be a dominant characteristic in their adult life. 

Teachers, educational administrators, and other allied frontline professionals have made great headway towards putting massive resources into violence prevention and working with problem youth. There is a multitude of sound research that proves our schools are still the safest and most productive haven for youths. The school is where all victim service and prevention staff should be aiming their talents and resources.

Law enforcement has instituted state of the art community policing measures to localize crime prevention efforts and have moved quickly and strategically into the schools in a proactive way. Police officers as school resource personnel have become an integral part of the school system, recognizing the future lies in reaching youth before they offend.

We know if a child is not in school, then problems usually develop. Truancy is cited as the gateway to future criminality, a precursor to future problems. If a child is not in school, there's a good chance he or she is unsupervised and engaging in a plethora of at-risk behaviors ranging from substance abuse, unprotected sex, and a host of various criminal acts (7). We must engage ourselves in all forums that offer a chance at reaching youths. Many of you are already doing this, and we can learn from other best practice programs. 

Prevention and victim services should go hand in hand. The California Youth Authority in 1992 created their Office of Prevention and Victim Services and have cross-trained their staff to work in both areas, engaging in various prevention efforts, recognizing that to truly stop victimization you must attack early at the root of its causes (3). Other agencies and non-profit organizations have heard and understood this call to arms and implemented prevention measures combined with victim services. This is the future!

Again, our first goal, sequentially, should be prevention of crime early with outcomes of less victimization. Secondly, we should deal with the aftermath of victimization as we always have. Stepping back and reaching youths and administering primary prevention tactics will ensure there is less victimization. This is more work in the short run, but with big benefits in the long run. There's no promise that this will be easy, but then again, none of you in this gritty profession expect anything less. Your used to standing toe to toe with nay sayers, never accepting no for an answer when you know it's the right thing to do, and you never have shied away from insurmountable challenges. The timing is ripe and the window of opportunity is at hand for us to march to the forefront as we have done in the past. 

Much has been accomplished and more is needed. We have planted many seeds of change, and we have reaped a plethora of beautiful blooms today. Let's plant these new seeds of change and look forward to a bounty of new blooms aimed at creating a society where crime is reduced and those who are hurt are healed. 

REFERENCES:

1. Allen, H. E., and Simonsen, C. E., 1989. Corrections in America, An Introduction. Fifth Edition. Macmillian Publishing Company. New York.

2. Bazemore, G. 1997. The "Community" in Community Justice: Issues, Themes, and Questions for the New Neighborhood Sanctioning Models. The Justice System Journal, Volume 19, Number 2. Pp. 193-228.

3. California Youth Authority, 1999. Information Paper, Office of Prevention and Victim Services.

4. Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., and Cothern , L. 2000. Predictors of Youth Violence. Bulletin. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

5. Herman, S. 8/10/2000. Restorative Justice. Remarks from the International Symposium on Victimology from the Executive Director of the National Center For Victims of Crime. Montreal, Canada.

6. Laurence, S., and Seymour, A., 1991. Crime Victims and Corrections: Setting the Agenda for the 1990's. U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime.

7. Manual to Combat Truancy, 1996. The Problem of Truancy in America's Communities. U.S. Department of Education in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice. 

8. More, H. 1985. Critical Issues in Law Enforcement. Forth Edition. Anderson Publishing. Cincinnati, Ohio.

9. New Directions From the Field: Victim tights in the 21st Century. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime. Washington D. C. 1999.

10. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime: Final Report. December. Library of Congress. 1982.

11. Siegel, L, 1992. Criminology. Forth Edition. West Publishing Company. University of Massachusetts.

12. Wyrick, P.A. 2000. Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth: The SHIELD Program. Bulletin. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

13. Zehr, H. 1997. Restorative Justice: The Concept. Corrections Today, December Issue. Pp. 68-70. 

Brett Macgargle
Biography

Brett Macgargle, M.P.A., is the statewide Director of the Office of Delinquency Prevention for the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. From 1987 to 1995, Mr. Macgargle served as State Director of Victim Services for the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. 

[Print This Editorial]