Interactional justice, coping and the legal system

Abstract

Secondary victimization refers to re-victimization by society, including the response of the criminal justice system. One form of secondary victimization is interactional injustice. The concept of interactional justice posits that people are concerned about their treatment by others during conflict resolution procedures. Proper treatment by legal authorities refers to receiving adequate information about the procedure (known as informational justice) and being treated in a respectful and dignified manner (known as interpersonal justice). One's ability to cope with the crime may also be influenced by the criminal justice system. Particularly for vulnerable victims, there appears to be a special need for proper treatment and attention to the victim's ability to cope. Female victims of violence, namely sexual and domestic violence, are one example of vulnerable victims. This victimization often consists of immensely violating and sometimes chronic repeated behaviour. The perceptions of interpersonal justice, informational justice and the procedure's effect on the victim's ability to cope for three categories of victims (domestic violence victims, victims of sexual abuse and victims of other serious crimes) in the Netherlands are compared. Multiple regression analyses indicate that there are in fact differences between groups. Victims of sexual assault perceived interpersonal justice as significantly lower than did victims of other serious crimes. The procedural effect on one's ability to cope was experienced to the least extent by victims of domestic violence. Informational justice did not differ among groups.

The experience of interactional justice for victims of ‘honour’-based violence and abuse reporting to the police in England and Wales

“…Interactional justice has been linked both to victims' ability to cope (Laxminarayan 2013) and, possibly relatedly, to a sense of self-worth and a sense of belonging within society (Murphy and Barkworth 2014). …”

“…Figures collated by government, statutory and non-governmental organisations suggest that HBVA is significantly under-reported and cases which are reported to the police infrequently lead to conviction. We consider victims' experience of the police as critical to understanding their perception of justice and in this paper use the framework of interactional justice (Laxminarayan et al 2012, Laxminarayan 2013 to analyse this encounter. The data derives from work commissioned in 2015 by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).…”

“…Procedural and interactional justice: a comparative study of victims in the Netherlands and New South Wales. European journal of criminology, 9 (3), 260-275;Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system: needs of vulnerable victims.…”

Is it all part of the game? Victim differentiation and the normative protection of victims of online antagonism under the European Convention on Human Rights

“…As a result, other factors may have to play a large part in giving victims the experience of receiving some form of redress from the criminal procedure as a whole. Making sure that the judicial process and the contacts with the judicial system run smoothly and respectfully, can then help counter secondary victimisation, such as negative effects or societal responses in regard to the previous victimisation (Herman, 2003;Laxminarayan, 2012Laxminarayan, , 2013Montada, 1994;Orth, 2002).…”

“…As shown above, states have a positive obligation to help satisfy some of these needs, by providing access to a legal process, and actual possibilities to investigate and potentially prosecute these crimes. This must then also, from a victimological perspective, be combined with other elements, such as respectful treatment of victims during that legal process to ensure a feeling of being heard and taken seriously, information and communication, and support and protection from judiciary and other relevant authorities (Enarsson, 2013; Laxminarayan, 2013; Shapland and Hall, 2007). In contacts between law enforcement and victims of online antagonism this could be crucial, since such crimes can be difficult to investigate and prosecute.…”