Victims justice preferences in a collectivist, informal setting: The case of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

Abstract

Victims justice preferences in a collectivist, informal settingLaxminarayan, M.S.; Pemberton, A. General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research -You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain -You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. AbstractAn abundance of research has emerged in the last 30 years focusing on justice preferences for victims of crime. In general, findings indicate that victims are interested in aspects of procedural justice, interactional justice, restorative justice, retributive justice and behavior control. Under certain conditions, however, these preferences may vary. One dimension that may lead to individuals diverging in their justice preferences is that of culture. The large majority of victimological research on victim legal preferences has been conducted in western jurisdictions. The current research adds to that body of knowledge by examining a different group: Bhutanese refugees residing in refugee camps in Nepal. This examination focuses on their collectivist status and how such cultural differences lead to different styles and characteristics of conflict resolution. It is hypothesized that victims in a collectivist society will primarily be interested in restoration, while voice to the decision maker, voice to the other party and retribution will not be important in predicting overall satisfaction. A multiple regression analysis confirms the hypotheses regarding voice toward the offender, restoration and retribution. Possible reasons for the remaining findings are discussed.

Stories as property: Narrative ownership as a key concept in victims’ experiences with criminal justice

“…The outcome of the trial in terms of retributive justice can be viewed as a contribution to retrieving the respect lost and the power usurped by the offender in the victimisation (Wenzel et al, 2008). This is also true for elements of procedural justice: interactional, informative and participatory justice can offer victims a voice, respect their dignity and acknowledge their stake in the offence (Laxminarayan, 2012).…”

Mediating influence of crime type on victim satisfaction with police services

“…Addressing the crime and victim processing by the police involves a series of decisions which have an impact on victim satisfaction (Lind and Tyler, 1988), restoring of normality in society, and developing trust and legitimacy in the police and criminal justice system (Tyler, 2011). Victim satisfaction and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system are determined by the quality of the procedure of decision making and the outcome of the process (Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Elliott et al, 2011; Laxminarayan and Pemberton, 2012).…”

“…The fairness in the outcome of the process, also called distributive justice, is important for the victim and impacts victim satisfaction (Elliott et al, 2011; Laxminarayan and Pemberton, 2012). For a victim, the outcomes of the process are manifested through corrective, retributive, formal, informational, and restorative justice (Carr, 1981; Verdonschot et al, 2008).…”

Satisfaction with police services among victims of physical assault in India

“…Victim processing involves a series of decisions that impact on victim satisfaction (Lind and Tyler, 1988), and the legitimacy of the police (Tyler, 2011). Victim satisfaction, trust, and legitimacy are influenced by the quality of the decision-making and outcomes process (Elliot et al, 2011; Laxminarayan and Pemberton, 2012; Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988). Satisfaction, trust, and legitimacy are also influenced by the personal characteristics of the victim (Laxminarayan, 2012).…”

“…The outcome of the procedure also has a significant impact on victim satisfaction (Elliot et al, 2011; Laxminarayan and Pemberton, 2012). Outcomes for victims of crime are realized through corrective, retributive, formal, informational, and restorative justice (Carr, 1981, Verdonschot et al, 2008).…”