Today's class discussion really opened my eyes and left me with two very different views on the Durazo article. I went into class understanding the concept of community accountability and its goal to transform lives and transform "the roots of violence" (79) but after today's discussion, being able to hear a survivor's view on it really changed my perspective on the article, yet I am still very conflicted.
Due to this particular case and the circumstances surrounding it, I can see why the two teachers decided to go with the community accountability approach. Gerardo's admission made it seem, well to me at least, that he wanted to work through his fault and become a better person.
I can see Gerardo as being someone that needed to be rehabilitated due to his childhood sexual assault history. Yet, he did tried to justify his actions by saying he was intoxicated and using his CSA as a reason as to why he committed the assault. However, this article demonstrated how they immediately disallowed for that to happen. "Accountability isn't the pursuit of redemption or forgiveness" (87), the CARA model is not made to forgive the perpetrator, it isn't made for the perpetrator to be above the survivor, it is to rehabilitate the perpetrator in a way that makes him acknowledge and admit his fault, while receiving counselling as well.
So this is why I am conflicted. We just touched upon how the prison systems sometimes do not have an effect on criminals, as it does not rehabilitate them. Also, it could encourage more deviant behaviour and how we could find ways to better the system, but today in class, when it came to this case, mostly everyone said that they would not stay to hear him or would report him. I am not saying in any way shape or form that that is wrong, because everyone's opinion was justified but what do we do then when we talk about rehabilitation being good for criminals yet when it actually comes to practicing it, everyone retracts what they said?
Moreover, after hearing the survivor's personal opinion on allowing the perpetrator to justify his actions, I immediately felt like shit because I mentioned in class how we need to use anger in order for him to comprehend his wrongdoing and build upon that. It may had made it seem as I was trying to make it about the perpetrator and how they need to be supported but I wasn't thinking through the survivor's lens and how that would make them feel.
My thoughts are still running wild because I do believe that some people should and need to get rehabilitated but also how it is not fair for someone to try and justify their actions. I don't know how to connect the two in a way that I can habituate them without dismissing the survivor's assault and the aftermath.
I've also been struggling because I do believe strongly in rehabilitation, but I believe rehabilitation for perpetrators needs to take into account what survivors want. It's always such a difficult situation, and the way it is set up now doesn't rehabilitate - as you said.
ReplyDeleteI am a strong proponent of restorative justice, and working with perpetrators, survivors, community members, etc. to come up with a solution that works for everyone involved (so it may not be the ideal solution but rather one that takes into account what the survivor wants for justice, ways to rehabilitate perpetrators, and what promotes community accountability). The problem with this model is I personally have only seen it used for youth, and for crimes where solutions may be clearer (for example, graffiti).
The Durazo piece made me feel very conflicted because while I do want to see community accountability, it seems like the model discussed could work to silence survivors in some cases. Like you, I am very conflicted because I do believe that prisons are not the answers, but I also don't know how well a community accountability model could work. It seems like either way survivors experiences are minimized and it is focused on the perpetrators actions rather than the effects of those actions (if that makes sense).
I agree with everything that has been said above, it is such a conflicting thing, whether or not we listen to the perpetrators. Yet, as we have mentioned on a couple of occasions in class, with the amount of sexual assaults that are occurring, not only do we have an extremely large community of survivors/victims but also a huge number of perpetrators. They are a large portion of the population that we need to recognize, and somehow need to rehabilitate and/or bring to justice. Yet, how do we do this without silencing survivors, or giving perpetrators a pass for what has truly and deeply impacted a person through their actions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that rehabilitation at this point should still focus on survivors and the effects of sexual violence, as well as going towards preventing more sexual violence, but eventually there needs to be a conversation and programs developed for interacting with perpetrators.