AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

directions: S to P ("clean slate"), S to V ("P is suffering, not
only you", P to S and V ("I'll not do it again") and V to P and S
("this has given me satisfaction, I'll not seek revenge"). And,
the general public is also given closure, being deterred.
The problem, as with any theory, is whether it works.
The major critique is the failure to deter individually or
generally. Given high recidivism for a broad spectrum of crimes,
and high and increasing level of criminality in general, it would
be difficult to argue that deterrence is effective, given that
this transaction model has been around for a long time. But there
are at least two important contra-arguments:
- "without this the situation would have been still worse", and
- "show me a better model".
Then there is another critique: no doubt the victim is short-
shrifted. After all the victim is the harmed, offended party.
All the victim is given is a public hearing (the court) that
transforms the suffering from private to public. This may invite
sympathy and solidarity, but may also work negatively like in
cases of sexualized violence against women. After that the victim
is treated to justice, "let them eat justice"; and supposed to
offer the State closure in return. No revenge, no pressure for
restitution. A very meager basis for healing. And yet some of
this seems to work: there are few cases of victims taking the
justice in their own hands, intercepting the process in front of
the court house on the day of the trial, adding to the process at
the prison gate on the day of release./50/
Lynching, the obvious exception, in a sense proves the point.
42