Cycle of violence Vs. Cycle of victimization
Nousheen Ahmed
Lecturer, Government College
Writing about something without having a muse or inspiration could be the most tedious and stultifying attempt one can make despite possessing good writing skills. It has more to do with stimulation that enables a writer to be comprehensive and appeal to the reader. Such a prompting impact I felt while reading an article “Cycle of Violence” written by a reverend human right’s activist. The writer vigorously establishes that since both the victim and the violator are basically human beings thus any kind of extremist reaction after an event of domestic violence, murder, rape or so on from the common as well as educated people of the society reflects the collective violent attitude of society itself as it advocates “violence for violence” which the writer himself rejects as the upholder of basic human rights because it gives birth to the “Cycle of violence”. The writer recommends the dire need of enhancing the ability to understand the factors underlying a crime and goes on further by accentuating that crimes cannot merely be eradicated by putting the criminal into judicial lock ups, or through punishment alone, rather for the elimination of crimes, which should be the prime focus, there are more vital things like: education, nurturing and counseling which can help deteriorate crime rates.
When we talk about being a human, as the writer says there is a clear prospect of committing some good or bad things at some stage of life and also all sorts of emotions ranging from one extreme to another. Therefore, it does not make educated people any superior to the common people for not reacting impulsively to an event which is poignant and demands some touchy reaction. Emotions are purely a human trait and educated people still remain humans at the core. Moreover, our educational system is obsolete which focuses on rot learning and memorization so it is devoid of emotional education which is again another debate. However, being educated why people do not react differently, rationally or appropriately instead of supporting the overall extremist attitude of society which creates cycle of violence is a pretty grave thing to understand. What factors are responsible for this collective extremist attitude of the society needs to be discussed ingenuously and a wholesome analysis is required to find either people or the social system is responsible for the overall extremist attitude of the society.
Science has already proven that “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This creates a natural balance and it is also well proved beyond doubts that whenever natural balance is disturbed there is always some disaster. This scientific logic may help better understand the extremist approach of the society that promotes violence for violence and neglects both the factors responsible for a heinous crime and the preventive solutions for its peaceful abolition. By implying this scientific logic it is not encouraged that violence should be beaten with violence at any cost rather it is an attempt to throw light on how people are compelled to behave extremely in the face of social injustice, subjugation and rejection to adjust the imbalance. Our crooked social system fails to safeguard the basic human rights of equality, tolerance and justice for all the privileged and unprivileged portions of the society in an equal manner. Eventually, the unprivileged portion of the society is the constant subject to the cycle of victimization. Since the weaker or unpowered portion of the society is crippled to stand up for their rights, or snatch it away by force, the imbalance generates the cycle of victimization which, when reaches its optimal point, people tend to break it, with extremist approach, regardless of being educated or uneducated.
Education cannot prevent people from being extremists because our nasty flawed social system lacks acceptance, inclusiveness, empathy, and justice. The role of nature and nurture plays a vital role in understanding the cycle of violence Vs cycle of victimization. People tend to be violent or forgiving by nature. People who tend to curb violence with violence tend to be instinctively violent while people who tend to curb violence with forgiveness or resort to peaceful alternatives like rule of law to break the cycle of violence possess non-violent instincts. The rule of law is a tool to maintain the natural equilibrium by offering some justified punishment that fits the crime and thus preventing the cycle of violence. When the rule of law flops to perform any remedial assistance to the victims of a crime and the justice is withheld for an unidentified period of time the victim suffers further victimization at the hands of law and the cycle of victimization is perpetuated which exhausts the non-violent people endlessly. In a society where there is strong social system and the victim is provided safety while the crime is curbed with plausible laws the natural balance is automatically maintained and people trust laws for justice. However, in a society that is infested with injustice and where crimes are usual, the overall attitude of the society tends to be violent to break away the cycle of victimization.
History provides us with both the instances where the balance of nature was maintained through violence for violence and also through violence with peaceful alternative solutions. The resultant of both is to maintain the natural balance by ensuring the standards of basic human rights but the ways of accomplishing the goal is quite the opposite. The one or the other way that the people of the society tend to choose is the touchstone that guides one to know how much degraded or civilized a society is and what is the overall attitude of the society. We have the best example of the non-violent Civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. who chose to fight for a cause with unending peaceful protests till the goal of freedom and equality was bestowed to the entire nation that was constant subject to the cycle of victimization. Also, we have the example of bandit queen for maintaining natural balance through violence for violence. In a rigid societal system, that doesn’t regard peaceful struggle for accomplishing justice, and challenges the standards of basic human rights, violence becomes inevitable to shun the cycle of victimization.
For the culmination of crimes in a society and to demolish the cycle of violence, education, nurturing and counseling can do wonders provided that the overall social structure enables the capacity of these mediums to be highly effective. The extremist attitude of the society is not because people are uneducated or because they have violence in their genes. It is only because the social system is defiled and ethical values and standards of humanity that preaches compassion and forgiveness are taken for granted and is considered a sign of weakness. The rule of law which is the backbone of a social system is fractured badly and justice has become an extinct thing. Supremacy of law is a big question mark that stares people straight in their faces as there is no protection and respect for the rights of people. Laws are eased for the mighty and suppress the weak. There is no equality in accountability before the law. There is no fairness in application of laws, they provide benefit to the criminal and prolong the process of justice and defy the standards of humanity. Ultimately, in order to change the violent attitude of society and to combat the crimes the system needs to be dissected and its backbone needs to be put back in its proper place so that education, nurturing and counseling could be in harmony with the system and the society could be called a well civilized society.
