Victim Support, years ago, seemed like a good idea. People who were traumatised because loved ones had been wiped out in some car smash or criminal shoot-out, home invasion, medical misadventure... parents whose baby had died in the night from what medicine started to call Sudden Infant Death Syndrome... Victim Support was set up, trained its volunteers, and now it suits the police to call them in where needed.
Then, before we realised, it had become somehow important to be a Victim. The media pitched in, of course, and we began to get interviews with seriously aggrieved or bereaved people, usually at times when they were unlikely to be rational.
The media gave them status as victims, publicly honoured and encouraged their suffering -- and then started to consult them as to their opinions on law reform, criminology, traffic management, police administration, criminal investigation, court procedures, sentencing and punishment.
Just today I heard on the radio a woman whose son had been murdered, inform us that she agreed with the High Court judge’s decisions. As far as I know, this woman has no expertise in the law whatever.
So we developed the culture of Victim. It has become a recognised status, something you might aspire to, were it not for the unfortunate fact that you have first to be traumatised. Victim is something you weren’t before. You now have recognition in the media, no longer anonymous or invisible, the way most of us are most of the time. You may even get to appear in court at the time of sentencing, to read out your Victim Impact Statement. Some of these in recent memory have been utterly illogical, hideously embarrassing, unnecessary. I remain confused as to why judges permit them.
The Chief Justice, Sian Elias, a learned, astute woman, recently said something to the effect that our courts exist to stand between alleged offenders and the rage of the Victims. They are intended to be an area of calm, logic and truth. Every intelligent person knows that the best any court can do is approximate to this ideal, yet it matters.
I prefer the culture of forgiveness. It is fascinating to see how this affects various people. Victims bent on revenge -- and plenty of others -- see forgiveness as at best disappointing, but more likely as a cop-out, other-worldly, wimpish and embarrassing. It is an embarrassment to some Christians that the Bible actually teaches forgiveness and proscribes “an eye for an eye”. They prefer to keep revenge, punishment, recrimination, in reserve at least, in case they need it.
Tapu Misa, one of the consistently good writers in the NZ Herald (she writes about issues rather than about herself) said:
“I met a victim of violent crime last year who wasn't a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Apparently, the trust hasn't quite cornered the market in crime victims (though not for want of trying, according to the victim; the trust made overtures, which she rejected).
“No worries, though, because the trust seems to have captured more than its fair share of senior government ministers eager to show crime victims how deeply they feel their pain - as evidenced by the presence of not only the Prime Minister but the Ministers of Police and Justice at the trust's conference at Parliament last week.
“The woman who told me her story over coffee and a few tears would not have defined herself as a "victim". She struck me as strong, brave, and hopeful. She could have been bitter as well, given the way she felt her family had been victimised not just by the person whose crime shattered their lives, but by the police's inept investigation and the sensationalist coverage in some media.
“But years later, she has made peace with what happened. Although her family were never the same again, she has rebuilt her life.”
Many people choose not to live in resentment, bitterness, revengefully. It is a decent and dignified way to go forward. It enhances life. And it is a free choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment