VICTIMS’ NEEDS OF JUSTICE

THE NEEDS OF JUSTICE OF CO -VICTIMS OF HOMICIDE IN

SANTIAGO DE CHILE

10th International conference of the EFRJ

June 2018, Hong-Kong

María José Gré Altermatt

OUTLINE
 Proyect background
 The context of Chile
 Victims’ needs of Justice
 Methodology
 Sample
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclussions
PROYECT BACKGROUND
• Latin America has high homicide rates (UNODC, 2013)

•Victimization is a social problem, not only due to the costs it

creates for society, but related to feelings of fear and
insecurity (Ministerio del Interior y seguridad pública,
2015).
THE CONTEXT OF CHILE
(RODRÍGUEZ & WINCHESTER, 2001)

 Inequality as a preexisting condition in Chile:

 Per capita income
 Quality of education
 Extent of new building investment
 Municipal authority levels of income and
expenditure

 Even Santiago de Chile is one of the safest cities in

Latin America, citizens’ perception of insecurity is high.
 Participa-
tion

Validation Offender
of the
victimiza- Victims’ accounta-
bility
tion
needs of
Justice
Vindication Voice
DALY,
2017
METHODOLOGY
o Type of study: qualitative study
o Method: Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006)
o Type of analysis: open, axial, selective coding
and additional analysis based on comparisons
(Strauss & Corbin, 2002)
o Data collection technique: Semi-structured
interviews
SAMPLE
Adults
Co-victims of homicide
 Victims’ center support
 Closed judicial processes
 Condemnatory sentence
Case Type of Victim’s Co-victim’s Victim- Time passed
crime gender gender offender between the
relationship ofense and the
interview
VF 4 Femicide Female Male (brother) Known 36 months
Media
VF 5 Homicide Male Male (father) Unknown 39 months
VF 17 Homicide Male Female (mother) Known 41 months

VF 23 Homicide Male Female (mother) Unknown 12 months

VF 26 Femicide Female Female Known 37 months

(daughter)

VF 29 Homicide Female. Female (mother) Known. 27 months

Media (hate crime) Young The offender
Transgender is a woman

VF34 Homicide Male Female (mother) Known (young 14 months

offender)
Results
RESULTS:
PARTICIPATION/INFORMATION
“One feels zero support, you are alone against everything,
disoriented, without information” (VF 26).
“Uno siente cero apoyo, estás sola contra todo, desorientada,
sin información” (VF 26). (Eleven years of prison).
"I would have felt much more relief to be informed, not to feel
psychologically crazy “(VF 23).
“Me hubiese aliviado mucho que me informaran, de no
sentirme como una loca psicológicamente” (VF 23).
*There is a clear lack of knowledge about the functioning of
the criminal justice system among co-victims of homicide.
Furthermore, this information needs to be provided in a way
that it is adapted to the co-victims personal characteristics
and needs.
VOICE
"Then when he (the judge) saw that, for example, I was
(…) getting emotionally complicated, it's like he cutted
me off (…) I wanted to tell the truth of what I felt, I'm
not going to be inventing. That part no, the judge did not
take it into account at all“ (VF 5).
“Entonces cuando él (el juez) vio que yo por ejemplo, yo
ya no estaba como, emocionalmente me estaba
complicando, es como que cortó (…) si yo quería decir
la verdad de lo que yo sentía po si yo no voy a estar
inventando. Esa parte no, el juez no la tomó en cuenta
en nada” (VF 5).
 Even when victims had had support service, this
doesn’t replace the need of voice during the trial as a
way of public expression and recognition of the
offense.
Results
VALIDATION OF THE VICTIMIZATION
"But there are people who steal a wallet and give them fifteen
years, seven years, ten years, and a person who killed someone
like an animal, who did not have feelings?" ( VF 23).
“Pero hay gente que se roba una cartera y le dan quince
años, siete años, diez años, ¿Y a una persona que mató a
alguien como a un animal, que no tuvo sentimientos?” (VF 23).
"Then I called the television to make it public, I said it's going to
be the only way for them to move forward (with the case),
because I’m not ashamed of what my son was" (VF 29).
“Entonces llamé a la televisión para hacerlo público, yo dije
va a ser la única manera de que se muevan, porque a mí
vergüenza de lo que era mi hijo no me da” (VF 29).
• There is a need for validation of the victimization and
achieving the seriousness of the offense (in the last case a
hate crime).
Results
VINDICATION
"The trial of my son was like a bather, they wanted to get rid of it, of the
trial, like: ‘let's do it quickly and now’ "(VF 26).
“El juicio de mi hijo era como un cacho, querían deshacerse ya de él,
del juicio, como que: ‘ya, hagámoslo rápido y ya’ ” (VF 26).

"Because they actually (...) were willing to put 15 million pesos and they
then made the decision not to accept that, and that (…) was the only (...)
decision (…) someone at least thought and thought beyond the laws.
"(VF 4).
“Porque ellos de hecho (…) estaban dispuestos a poner 15 millones
de pesos y ellos entonces tomaron la decisión de no acoger eso, y eso
fíjate que me pareció la única (…) decisión que tú dices aquí alguien
por lo menos pensó y pensó más allá de las leyes.” (VF 4).
 Victims’ perceives that they are annoying for CJS. In that panorama,
vindication is not even mentioned and when it’s done by the CJS, the
offer does not adapt to the victims’ needs.
OFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY
"I feel a little bad suddenly when I talk about this topic, but
(...) if it’s useful. That's why I do it (...) Because what I want
it is that (the offense) does not happen again"(VF 29).
“Yo me siento un poquito mal de repente cuando hablo
de este tema, pero (…) si en algo sirve. Por eso lo hago
(...) Porque lo que yo quiero es que no vuelva a pasar”
(VF 29).
 Co-victims don’t mention spontaneously the need for
offender to take responsibility. However, we can say that
for co-victims it is important that offender does not
commit the same offense again.
 JUSTICE ACCESS
“My son didn´t have justice. Why? Because
I’m poor” (VF 23).
“Mi hijo no tuvo justicia ¿Por qué? Porque soy
pobre” (VF 23).
• CJS should guarantee the same possibilities
independent from personal characteristics.
DISCUSSION
 Absence of spontaneous comments on the need of
offender accountability remains relevant. We wonder if this
has something to do with the adversarial system in Chile, in
which there is no promotion of offender accountability.
More research is required for having new evidence of:
a) Judicially open cases in longitudinal studies
b) Cases with no judicial process involved
c) And cases with no condemnatory sentence
 Results for validation allows us to think that insatisfaction
with the CJS can move other resources of the victim for
making justice (e.g. contacting media), but that would not
replace the CJS role in making justice.
DISCUSSION
 The need of voice in the trial, direct us to understand justice
like a social phenomenon, that requires implementing more
efforts of CJS in working with co-victims of homicide.
 Vindications’ needs are more than a law issue. Through
different needs, the importance to co-victims of adapting to
them has been crucial.
Participation can not be thought if co-victims feel isolated
from the judicial actors. We have create the concept of the
‘anonymous victim´ to think and open new questions of what
really victims need.
Justice access. Victims’ may need to have the same chances of
justice than anyone else no mater it’s gender, sexual orientation
or media contacts and economic status of the co-victim.
CONCLUSIONS
• There are consistent elements with theory mentioned in terms of
validation, voice and participation/information, for the sample
exposed.
• Vindication it is in fact offered withot concerning victim´s
needs.
• Related to the offender accountability -like a less visible
aspect- it’s important to mention a related category: Justice
access
• Socioeconomic factor of the sample
• Justice like something that may be cost for it’s success
• Hopeless sense of justice when linked to CJS
• Low credibility given to the CJS
• And a strong punitive view of the CJS
• Justice access is understand as the desire of co-victims of a
blinded CJS in the sense of having preferences.
REFERENCES
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing gruonded theory. London: Sage.

Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública (2015). Víctimas de delito en

Chile: Diagnóstico Nacional. Retrieve from www.seguridadpublica.gov.cl/

Daly, K. & Wade, D. (2017). Sibling sexual violence and victims’ justice
interests: a comparison of youth conferencing and judicial sentencing. in e.
Zinsstag & m. Keenan (eds.) Sexual violence and restorative justice: legal,
social and therapeutic dimensions (pp.143-178). London: Routledge.

Pemberton, A. (2009). Victim Movements: from diversified needs to varying

criminal justice agenda’s. Acta Criminologica, 22(3), 1-23.
 REFERENCES
Pemberton, A., & Reynaers, S. (2011). The controversial nature of victim
participation: therapeutic benefits in victim impact statements. In E.
Erez, M. Kilchlinh, & J. J. M. Wemmers (eds.), Therapeutic jurisprudence
and victim participation in justice: international perspectives (pp. 229-
248). Durham, North carolina: carolina academic publishing.
UNODC. (2014). Global Study on Homicide 2013 (United Nations
publication, Sales N°. 14.IV.1).
Rodríguez, A., & Winchester, l. (2001). Santiago de Chile:
metropolización, globalización, desigualdad. Eure (Santiago), 27(80),
121-139.
Shapland, J. (1984). Victims, the criminal justice system and
compensation. The British Journal of Criminology, 24(2), 131-149.
Strauss, A. l. & Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa:
técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada.
Medellín: Universidad de antioquia.