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