Abstract
In new age scenario Prisons are meant not only to punish the convict but also correct the situation and habits of the convicts, who is responsible for inflicting harm on the victim. But family members of the convict are also the victim in the process and situation. Convicts family face the horrific situation during this process. Prisoner’s families are maltreated directly and indirectly by the society. They live in destitution. Imprisonment of family member not only diminishes the earnings of adult men but also reduces familial resources for the basic necessities of life. The family members have to sacrifice their children’s education, ancestor’s property, past savings, in some cases even necessary wants of their life. We always think about the victim on whom the harm has been directly inflicted and completely ignore the harm inflicted on the kin of the convict. The present study is an endeavour to bring to light the economic vulnerability of families of convicts in a prison in Bhubaneswar. After interviewing the family members of prisoners, statistical analysis is done through SPSS. The findings are elaborated in narrative manner so that the findings will be helpful for policy makers in future.
Introduction
The families of lawbreakers are integral members of the society who have suffered harm, secondarily, resulting from the felony [17]. Prisons are meant to punish the convict who is responsible for inflicting harm on the victim. Prisoner’s families in general are greatly affected by conviction of their family member [19]. Society is engrossed in arresting, punishing the persons who are involved in illegal work, and holds itself accountable for doing so. But the society is neither interested in nor feeling any type of responsibility for the protection of innocent who are associated with the offender [3]. No one is worried about the families of the convicts. They are victimized at the first place by the convict and second place by the society. They are bearing not only financial loss but also loss of monetary backing. In each aspect harm inflicted by the family member who has committed a crime, on the primary kin is somehow ignored by the convict and society. The family members have to sacrifice their children’s education, ancestor’s property, past savings, in some cases even necessary wants of their life. We always think about the victim on whom the harm has been directly inflicted and completely ignore the harm inflicted on the kin of the convict. In most cases harm is more financial. It makes them economically weak. Through a small sample survey the current research is an effort to bring to light the vulnerability of families of offenders who are serving sentence in a prison in Bhubaneswar.
Elaboration of concepts
In this study our aim is to justify the economic victimisation of families or primary kin of convicts. When the study is exploring economic victimisation it means this research is trying to find out the sufferings of family members of convict due to paucity of funds, sudden fall in the aggregate level of income in the family, out flaw of money for their past saving and many more. So, elaboration of concepts for this study includes kin, sentence, convict, victimisation, consumption and family member of convict as secondary victim.
Kin
Kin refers to one’s family and relation. The most universal and basic of all relationship is known as kinship [28]. Kinship, marriage and family are closely related. It enjoys central place in all societies, in spite of presence of difference in social, economic and political institutions. Kinship is also known as most organising principle in any society [21]. The relationship, which is established on the basis of blood and marriage, is basically known as kinship [1].
One of the main organizing principles and the basic social institutions found in every society is Kinship [14]. It creates relationships between individuals and groups. Various kinds of bonds through which, people were bound together in a society [22]. Among all bonds marriage and reproduction are the two most basic bonds [12]. These two basic bonds are known as kinship and the reason behind all other relationship. Therefore the institution of kinship is based on blood relationships or marriage [11].
Sentence
Sentence refers to the punishment given to an individual convicted of a crime. Judge normally ordered a sentence if there is no jury, otherwise his order is based on the decision of the jury within the possible punishments set by state law.
The jail or prison time, ordered after conviction is generally known as sentence. Sentence may be wholly or partly rigorous depending upon the severity of crime [32]. The formal punishment imposed on an individual convicted of committing a crime is known as sentence. A sentence is determined by a panel of judges in most criminal trials. Two-phase process is followed in the typical criminal trial: by hearing the evidence Jury first decide the defendant is guilty or not then secondly after considering the evidence and hearing some instructions from the judge they decide what punishment best ‘fits’ the crime. Sentencing phase or the penalty phase is the final phase in this method. Normally the jury recommended the punishment to the judge. Who formal sentences to the defendant is actually given by the judge.
Convict
An Individual who found guilty of a criminal offense and serving a sentence of imprisonment is known as convict [23]. One who is behind the bar because the person found guilty of a criminal action [10]. Our study revolves around their families as they are suffering due to the imprisonment of their kin. Here sentence of conviction is meant for the person who has committed crime to protect the society from these criminals and to impart justice to the direct victim of the wrongful action. The aim of the research is to find out the victimisation of family members of the convict as they are suffering after the imprisonment of the offender.
Victimisation
The process through which a person is becoming a victim is acknowledged as Victimisation. Study of victim logy deals with the process, rates, incidence, effects, and prevalence of victimisation. In short it is the scientific study of victims of crime [6]. On the basis of types of victim, victimisation can also be of three types primary, secondary and tertiary victimisation. Victimisation refers to the individual who is harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action [25]. In other way persons who have suffered loss, injury or traumas are termed as victim [38].
Consumption
Use of final goods and services to satisfy human wants is known as consumption. In other words it is termed as destruction of utilities. It is treated as a very important stimulus on which the entire economic system of a country rests [31]. It is known as the start and end of all economic activities, key of standard of living, source of production, helps government in economic policy formulation and it provide the basis for income and employment theory.
Family member of convicts as secondary victims
Victims are the people who have directly or indirectly bear the loss during the process of law breaking. This study is concentrating on families of convict as secondary victim. These families are the forgotten victim of the whole process. They exist, suffer but they cannot raise their voice as their close one is a criminal. Conviction of their family member not only infringing social hardship and emotional loss but also compelling them to cut down their expenses with respect to their necessary wants.
Review of relevant literature
This study is concentrating on the economic victimization of families of the offender. Here by family members it takes in account the primary kin of the convict. Generally in the one side people are showing their concern, regards and sympathy to the victims and on the other side they are misbehaving, avoiding and showing hatred towards the primary kin of the convict. So this study is defining these family members as secondary victims of crime. Here the literature review includes types of kin, types and factors affecting sentencing, types of victimisation, consumption behaviour and family members of offender ad secondary victims.
Kin
The two aspects of relationship like blood relationships and marriage are the roots behind two main types of affinity. Like Consanguine Kin, the relationships based on blood and affine Kin, the relationship formed on the basis of marriage [11]. The example for consanguine kin or kinship is the relationship between parents and children, and between siblings. Again affine kin or kinship refers to the relationships that result from marriage in between husband and wife [24]. On the basis of degree of closeness or distance of any relationship affinity has three degree. This degree depends upon how individuals are related to each other.
Primary kin
Direct relation among individuals is known as primary kin. The individuals who are directly related to each other are known as primary kin. Primary affinity is of two types like Primary Consanguine Kinship and Primary affine Kinship [26]. Those who are directly related to each other are known as Primary Consanguine kin. The connections between parents and children and between siblings refer primary kinship. In the societies of all over the world these primary consanguine kin are common. The second category refers to the direct relationship resulted from marriage. The connection in between husband and wife is known as the only direct affine kinship.
Sentence
A sentence could be of various types depending upon the degree of severity of lawbreaking, like the imposition of a fine or the requirement that the offender serve a term of days, weeks, or years in a correctional facility, like a prison. Sentence for violent crime is much harsher than the sentences for nonviolent crimes [9]. A set of guidelines for sentencing are included in the Legal systems. These guide lines include a minimum and maximum sentence that can be enforced. During the determination of punishment and fair sentencing the facts of the crime are frequently taken into consideration. Separate individuals might endorse different verdicts for the same delinquency, and the similar law-breaking implemented by separate criminals might permit diverse sentences. Sentencing of criminals is a subjective phenomenon or practice. It is not process which can be mathematically determined and proved [29].
The type of crime committed is first and foremost thing which affects criminal sentencing. Generally harshness of punishment depends upon the cruelty of crime committed. Harshness of punishment is less in non-violent crime than punishment imposed for a violent crime. Criminal sentencing is also affected by procedure through which the crime was committed. Criminal Sentencing is also affected by different judges, because all individuals are different in nature. It also depends upon the areas because different areas are more prone to penalise certain law-breaking more harshly [15].
Recent happenings, legislations, and even the attitude of the judge can all be reasons that influence sentencing secondarily. In some cases, the ability of an individual’s legal representative might affect sentencing. Although practically no sum of negotiation or political influence can lessen a predominantly serious verdict.
Victimisation
There are three basic types of victims like, Primary victims, who are directly suffered loss, injury or trauma by the critical event. Like victim of rape or a murder. Secondary Victims are those who in some way observers of immediate traumatic effects on primary victims or the people who are indirectly affected by a crime are known as indirect or secondary victim Such as immediate relatives of victims as well as convict. Lastly tertiary victims, who are removed from the critical event but who are impacted through encountering a primary or secondary victim are known as tertiary victims. The welfare of the family specifically the small one or children is threatened after the conviction of the father or the sole bread earner of the family [20]. Here the convict is not harming them directly but inflicting hardship, trauma and stigmatisation to their lives [34]. It is vital to let criminal justice to play its own role. It is considered the primary obligation of the state under the Constitution of India. The criminal justice system of India is derived from the British model. The concepts of prevention of crime and treatment and rehabilitation of criminals, has been accepted by the penal philosophy in India. In India the state undertakes the full concern to accuse and penalise the lawbreakers by considering the victims as mere witnesses. Still state is playing an active role to depart justice to these victims of crime. But the secondary victims of crime are here the families of convicts’. No one is paying any type of heed to their socio, economic and emotional loss. This study is concentrating on Indirect or Secondary victims as victimisation of family members of convict.
Consumption behaviour
It reflects the pattern of consumption of specific people. The process through which, individual generally choose the goods and services for their satisfaction of wants [4]. In this study we concentrate on the consumption behaviour of the families of convicts. Primary kin of the convicts are treated as the consumer group. The deterioration of consumption behaviour is a factor of economic victimisation in this analysis.
Family member of convicts as secondary victims
The prey who, is not directly affected by the crime but is related to the primary victim is generally termed as secondary victim. Secondary victimisation is also known as post crime victimisation. The processing and treatment of social deviant is one of the most important but during the treatment the society is totally forgetting about the indirect suffering of the innocent people who are related to the convicts. The most prisoners are members of family, kin and friendship networks. When convicts experience the fundamental effects of imprisonment and withdrawal of liberty, their families are leading their lives under the shadow of jail. This shadow of prison not only cast over the kin of convicts but also over entire society. The primary kin of convicts experience the effects of sentence most acutely with respect to all most all sphere of life. Lives of these family members are going through vast and tragic changes. Despite the locks, bars and bolts the convicted family member is still a family member that is why families continues to care for the prisoners [7].
Theoretical framework of the study
The following theories are providing theoretical frame work for this research. Here the research is aiming to relate the restorative justice theory of punishment and Duesenberry’s theory of consumption behaviour analysis.
Theories of punishment
Punishment of prisoners include fines, forfeiture of property, imprisonment simple and rigorous, public scorn, death penalty and many more [32]. Theories of punishment concentrate on justification of punishment both in general and for particular crime. From the various theories of punishment which can provide the theoretical framework for this work is Restorative Justice [5]. It emphasises on restoring the people who are harmed by the crime. It aims the victim’s condition earlier to the crime, by forcing the malefactor to help the prey. A sentence, which the offender is compel to do, is vindicated to the degree that it restores victims to their status prior to the crime, like their mental and/or physical state, property restoration, and so on. Mediation between victim and offender is an essential element of the restorative-justice movement. It attempts to deal crimes as conflicts between the victim, the offender, and the community. Supporters of Restorative- justice want to enable the victim, the offender, and the community to mutually overhaul the maltreatment done to the prey. They just want to restore the relationship between victim and offender [27]. The present study is taking into account the families of convict as secondary victim; therefore its aim is to restoring these families. Everyone in the system is concentrating in the restoration of the victim or the persons who are related to the victim, no one is bother about the restoration of the families of convicts who are also going through a shaking phase of their life. So restoration is equally applicable for these innocent people who are neither present in the crime scene nor supported the convict to commit crime.
Theories of consumptions
Consumption expenditure depends on various factors like wealth, availability of credit, future income, taste and preference of consumer etc. But the most important factor on which dependency of people’s consumption is relatively more is their income level [36]. Theories of consumption are basically four types like Absolute income hypothesis, Relative income hypothesis, Permanent income hypothesis and Life cycle Hypothesis [8]. For this study James Duesenberry’s Relative income hypothesis (RIH) can be appropriate. According to him “A real understanding of the problem of consumer behaviour must begin with a full reorganisation of social character of consumption patterns”. It explains the short run rigidity of consumption. The consumption pattern of families not only influence by the living standard of others but also influence by the past peak income level [18]. So cutback in consumption pattern is difficult by the families who were enjoying a good and healthy pattern of consumption before. This is basically known as Ratchet effect in Duesenberry’s RIH.
Aim of the study
The study attempts to assess Economic victimisation of the families of offenders in the field of job opportunity, earning, economic-wellbeing, loss in property during court proceedings and change in consumption pattern as well as welfare condition after the conviction of a primary kin.
Methodological orientation of the study
This research is exploratory in nature. Since it is an exploratory study no hypothesis has been constructed for the study. This study includes collection of primary data through face to face interview of the primary kin of convicts visiting Jharpada Jail. Here by primary kin the researcher means parents, siblings, spouse and offspring between 12 to18 years of the convicts. The area of research is Jharpada Jail Bhubaneswar. Here the sample size is 100 family members of the convicts serving sentence in Jharpada Jail, Bhubaneswar. Non probability sampling procedure is used in this research. It includes Purposive Sampling and Convenience Sampling. Qualitative analysis is conducted to explore economical transition of convict’s family. For the purpose of analysis descriptive statistics such as mean, median mode and frequency and correlation analysis has been conducted with the help of SPSS (22).
Empirical findings of the study
I have interviewed 100 respondents. Out of which 61 were female and 39 were males. By interacting with them it was evidently shown that females are more caring among their families and they were visiting to the victims in frequent intervals. Eight one visitors were married and only four were divorced. Only 3 visitors were below 18 years of age and above 55 years of age visitors were 16 in number. Mean age of visitors was 40. Ninety six were bold relatives where as only 4 visitors were non blood relatives. This shoes how blood relatives are caring even after conviction also. Out of the visitors 16 were illiterate, 45 were studied up to class 10
After analysing the movable property the information elicited that all have television in their home as basic need, 60 families having music system where as 59 families having radio. This depicts their consumption pattern. 67 families are having refrigerator and 93 families having fan as basic need. As a symbol of luxury 25 families having air conditioner/cooler, 65 people having Godrej, 39 people having water purifier and 27 families having computer in their home.
Empirical findings on economic victimisation
Eighty two numbers of the family members are affected financially by the absence of the convict and 18 are of the view that there is no change in the financial condition. Twenty of the primary kin of convicts are using their past savings,16 families have taken loan from their relatives, 10 families have reduced their expenses, 14 have started working to manage the expenses, 32 families have conveyed that they are managing somehow and 8 of respondents said that they have failed to manage the financial crisis in their family which occurred due to the conviction. Sixty eight of the primary kin of the convicts interviewed were of the opinion that their financial status has changed after conviction of their family member. Rest 32 opined that there is no such change in their financial status in the society. Fifty two numbers of the families have taken loan from banks, which are again serving another important and most unavoidable burden on them. Six numbers of the family members have sold their house-hold articles and ornaments to finance court proceedings. Twenty four of them are avoiding social gathering to save themselves from social expenditures. Twenty nine of the family members are forcefully sacrificing their necessary requirements in life. Twenty five of them are in a stage where they have to reduce their expenses. Eleven of the primary kin of convicts have been struggling to lead their previous life. Five of convict’s family have stopped sending their children to school to save themselves from extra expenses.
Change in consumption behaviour
During the interaction with the family members of convict serving sentence in Jharpada jail Bhubaneswar, it is clear that maximum of them are sole bread earner of their family. The exactly 96 of the convicts were the earning member of the family and only 4 of them were unemployed. Among these 96, 32% were earning less than 10,000, 36% of them were earning 10,000 to 25,000 and 28% were yielding 25,000 or more. It indicates that the conviction of the offender at the first place resulted in sudden fall in the family’s aggregate income.
Consumption behaviour of families before conviction
Monthly consumption expenditure of 56% of the respondent has varied in between 50000 to 10,000. 32% of the families were spending monthly in between 10,000 and above and monthly spending of only 14% of the families was less than 5000.
Consumption behaviour of families after conviction
48% of the households are spending 50000 to 10,000 for their Monthly consumption. Only 12% of the families are spending 10,000 and above for their monthly for consumption. Lastly 40% of the families are incurring expenses less than 50000 on monthly consumption.
Comparative change in consumption behaviour of the families of convicts after conviction
There is a net increase in 26% in the lowest slab of consumption expenditure and 20% net decrease in the highest slab of monthly consumption expenditure. This is showing the difference of consumption behaviour after conviction of the family member. Each and every family in this analysis is trying their best to maintain their previous consumption expenditure. They are doing so by spending from their past saving, some of them are selling their household items, and few housewives are selling their ornaments to meet their day to day expenses. Their behaviour here justifying the Duesenberry’s Relative income hypothesis specifically Ratchet effect or past peak income hypothesis which states that current consumption is a function of last peak level of income in the family. Therefore with the fall in income it is very hard for the convict’s family members to reduce the consumption to cop up the rate of fall in their family’s income.
Revelation from the empirical findings of the study
Revelation of economic victimisation
Empirical findings of the study reveal that maximum of the family member are suffering financially due to the conviction of their family member. Again these family members suffering is unexplainable on economic point of view because their suffering is not only related to loss of financial support but also connected with harassment, indebted ness, increase in loan burden, loss in the social status, scarifying necessary things of life etc. and many more. Some people lost their hope in family life. Some house wife started working and some have started handling their spouse business to meet the necessary expenses of their family. The conviction of the family member imposes hardship on their family in all possible types on the convict. They have also started avoiding social gathering as they are also feeling guilty and shameful because of the conviction of their family member. They are also trying hard to lead their previous life. Due to lack of support and funds some of them stopped schooling of their children.
Consumption pattern of almost all family members were healthy before the conviction of their dear one. Maximum of them were economically poor, but they are managing their expenses anyhow. But after the imprisonment of their family member some of them are viewing that they are now not able to manage their family. Those who are saying that they are managing actually they are able to do so with the help of their past savings, taking financial help from near and dear ones, selling their house hold articles and ornaments etc. By seeing the consumption behaviour of the families of convict’s before conviction it can be stated that they were leading their life in such a scenario where there was no deficiency food which is a very important component of human development index of any country. But after conviction of their family member they have to do so because it results in sudden stop of income source of the family. But they cannot able to change their consumption pattern as per RIH of Duesenberry, so to maintain their previous consumption pattern they are using their past saving, taking loans from near and dear one’s, selling their precious ornaments and house hold durables.
Consumption behaviour of families after conviction have changed in a negative manner many of them changed their consumption slab. Fall in the category of consumption expenses 10,000 and above, indicates that families are not able to maintain their previous status. Rise in the lowest slab of consumption indicates that the conviction of the family member compel these family to cut down their expenses. Here we can relate this situation with the deterioration of welfare condition of the families. Because Pareto optimality condition states that if some people’s condition is deteriorating without enhancement of welfare of anyone else it is a situation of fall in the welfare condition [2].
Conclusions
The families of wrongdoer are also victims of the convicts’. Even these victims are not only treated as second group of secondary victims but also forgotten victims of the critical event. They are not only suffering economically but also going through a very critical emotional stage of their lives. Some struggling to cop up with the situation some are confused how to act and some are living with the hope that everything will be fine after the end of conviction. Whatever they are going through is not because of their fault but still as the convict is the integral part of their family that is why they have to bear the pain. So the pain they have been bearing since or before conviction is because of the relationship they are having with the convicts. They not only need restoration but also need support from the state to maintain a life they are leading before. They are doing every type of possible work to maintain their previous consumption pattern. For this they are using their past saving they have borrowed money from others, some of the dependent started working and some have taken the charge of the business. Deterioration of their standard of living is a direct result of the conviction of their kin. They are suffering from economic degradation, paucity of funds and burden of loan repayment. These forgotten victims are very badly suffering from basic necessities of their life. Therefore, this category of people who, are termed as “Convicts’ Family Members” are also the victim of convict and the total procedure.
In order to curb this situation the state must support these secondary victims during the court proceedings. Legal service may be extended to those who are going through emotional break down or bearing severe mental problem due to the conviction of their family member. Financial help particularly during the court proceedings may be extended to the needy families who were totally dependent on the convict before conviction. State may try to arrange alternate earning source for the families where there is no one to provide financial support after conviction of the family member. State may protect the future generation specially the children of these families who are going through a traumatic situation, which is not only affecting their mental ability, concentration but also the basic necessities of their life. Government may think about these groups of people and introduce some plan and policies to uplift these sections of the society.