VI - Victims’ Need for Justice: Individual versus Collective Justice

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Victimologists have traditionally studied the needs of crime victims at the individual level. In contrast, the collective needs of victims following mass victimizations such as genocide have, until recent years, received little attention in the field of victimology. Mass victimization affects the entire community and the trauma is experienced collectively (Josse & Dubois 2009). When there is intergroup conflict, the victim is affected not only as an individual but also as a group member. Hence, Hamber (2009) argues that in order to transform wartorn societies we cannot follow a solely individualistic approach. Based on his experience with victims of political violence, Hamber argues that there cannot be a medical solution to political trauma. This requires an understanding of the collective needs of victims. Drawing on social psychological theory and research, this chapter examines victims’ need for justice. Justice is one of the key issues for victims in transitional societies both at the individual and group levels (Wemmers 1996; Herman 2003; Hamber 2009; Nader & Shnable 2008). When justice is not done, this can negatively impact both the individual victims’ recovery as well as that of the society (Josse & Dubois 2009). In particular, the absence of justice can affect intergroup relations and consequently reconciliation (Nadler & Shnable 2008). In this chapter, I examine the meaning of justice for victims at the individual and group levels.

JUSTICE AT THE LEVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL

The notion of justice has received considerable attention from social psychologists since the early 1960s. Early theorists focused on outcomes or distributive justice (Homans 1961; Adams 1965; Deutsch 1975; Walster, Walster & Berschied 1973). However, since the 1970s, psychologists have emphasized that in addition to outcomes, procedural justice is also important (Thibaut & Walker 1975). More recently some psychologists have argued that in addition to procedural justice, one must also consider interactional justice (Colquitt 2001). In the following these notions will be explained.

PROCEDURAL AND INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of procedures. Lind and Tyler (1989; 1992) present two models of procedural justice: the instrumental model and the group-value model. According to the instrumental model fair procedures are important because they maximize the probability of a positive outcome. In the group-value model, fair procedures are important because they recognize or reinforce the status of the individual as a worthy group member.