In situations of conflict or violent incidents, there can be physical injuries and mental ones. The physical injuries are likely to be more visible; and therefore more immediately apparent. The mental trauma is likely to be less visible, quieter, and potentially long-lasting.

In organisations such as the military, the police and first response services, the likelihood of being involved, witnessing or having to deal with the aftermath of these kinds of traumatic incidents is higher than in other professions. That is why it is important that these situations are dealt with in a way that supports welfare in the time immediately afterwards, as well as offering a means of talking things through at a later time. Being able to have conversations, even difficult ones, is critical.

There are organisations out there who support victims, offering support with material needs, supportive listening and the opportunity to talk. Who or what is a victim? It may not be as clear as it seems at first sight. One person may have been through a terrible ordeal, and yet not perceive themselves as a victim. What may be minor and unremarkable for some, is a terrible source of distress for others. Someone who seems fine immediately after a traumatic incident, might struggle to cope further down the track. Repeated exposure to trauma could further complicate things.

And then there is the question of victims and perpetrators, particularly in the case of conflict or incidents of aggression. We might feel that someone who acts out of self defense is morally in the right. Or that a violent offender should be made to suffer for their aggressive behaviour. There might even be a desire for retribution and punishment. These concepts are perhaps somewhat different to the idea of justice and accountability, by which someone or something is held responsible for their actions. There is a difference between public condemnation and consequences of actions, versus vengeance and punishment for punishment’s sake.

The justice system is generally tasked with holding offenders to account and providing a sense of fairness and resolution for victims. It is also a means of ensuring public safety, and minimising the risk of further harm. But the goals and desired outcomes are not always clear. Sometimes it would seem the primary focus is on punishment and vengeance, as opposed to healing and reparation. Arguably a shift in focus towards reconciliation could help put more of us on a path towards healing.

Prisons are one means of punishing offenders. For the most high-risk and serious offending, this might be the only option. But there are also reasons why prisons are not an ideal means for dealing with lesser offending. There are questions around what it really achieves, the cost of keeping people there, as well as the possibility of minor offenders being exposed to more serious ones, thereby raising the risk of reoffending on release from prison. And then there is the question of whether seeing someone go to jail actually helps the victim heal from their trauma in the long-term, or whether the perpetrator comes to a better understanding of the victim’s point of view.

At the heart of all this is the possibility of something more compassionate and restorative – a possibility for acceptance and forgiveness. That is not to say there should be no consequences, quite the opposite. But rather than simply banishing those who have wronged or upset us, that we work towards reconciliation and understanding. Being able and willing to talk directly to each other might be a useful first step.