The Theoretical Foundations of Mediation Between the Victim and Offender

Mediation as a method of conflict resolution also applicable to conflict resulting from an offences is the alternative of legal solution of disputes, a technique shared by various models that promote the use in practice of consensus. This novel plocedure fot conflict resolution (which is however derived from the traditions of the oldest societies) - a consensual one, based on agreement between parties - has been developing most dynamically over the recent decades, and pervaded all branches of the law in most legal systems (H. Jung, T. Marshall). In the specific context of criminal justice, mediation does not necessarily aim at conflict resolution. For this reason, it is defined as a process, where parties to proceedings are offered the possibility to actively participate in resolving issues that result from the offence, and are assisted in so doing by an impartial third person or mediator. Mediation may take a variety of forms (direct or indirect); it may be conducted by professional or lay mediators, under auspices of the law enforcement agencies or by an independent social organization, and the parties to it may include not only the victim and the offender but also their relatives and other supporters as well as representatives of the criminal justice system. As has already been mentioned, the origins of mediation between the offender and his victim date back to the oldest past when all issues related to harm involved in acts that are today treated as offences were adjusted in the course of negotiations by those directly concerned assisted by their families and clans. The offences was seen as a conflict between the victim and the perpetrator, with due consideration to the social context. Once the function of reacting to crime was taken over by the state, the reactions initially resembled the modern rules of civil law. Later on, when crime was interpreted as violation of the order established by the ruler, penal sanctions aimed not only at compensating the victim but also at supporting the authority of the state. Although Nils Christie's picture of the state stealing the conflict is a convincing illustration of this situation, the fact should be borne in mind that the state's taking over of the function of punishing was an immense cultural achievement of its time, especially for those members of the conmunity who were too weak to vindicate their claims (B.-D. Meier). Solutions that provide for specific forms of consensus can also be found in modern legal systems. In the area of mediation between the victim and offender, the practice outpaced theory. It was inspired, among other things, by examples of "community justice'' of non-Western cultures; by the movement on behalf of victims, the progress of victimology, the diversion conception, and abolitionism; by the theory of social peace and conflict resolution and by the conception of reparatory justice. This latter conception deals with most problems posed by the other ones. It is, however, difficult to define, and its essence is difficult to explain, especially if we try to embrace threads important for all the trends on which it bases. Thus in the end, a simpler definition suggested by T. Marshall won general acceptance: "reparatory justice is an approach to crime, oriented on solving the problem, which engages perionally all parties involved in it as well as the community, in active relation to the public sector institutions. It is not a specific activity but a set of ruled that may set the direction of the bulk of actions of all institutions or groups related to crime. Reparatory justice is a process in which all parties involved in a specific offence meet to reach a joint solution of the issue of effects of crime and conclusions for the future". This definition was subsequently modified somewhat by other authors. In particular, it was accepted by an international body - the International Research Network on Reparatory Juvenile Justice in its Leuven Declaration of May 1997 concerning advisability of promoting the reparatory approach to juvenile delinquency. Reparatory justice is discussed as a specific trend, approach, philosophy or even idea; according to most authors, however, it has not yet developed into a consistent theory, although incessant efforts are made towards this aim. The term "reparatory justice'' is attributed to R. Barnett; H. Zehr's contribution is the first general model of that justice as an "alternative paradigm of justice" whose main principles are opposed to those of the traditional retributive justice. Also J. Braithwaite's idea of "reintegrating confusion'' was of importance for the development of the reparatory justice conception. It is associated e.g. with Hirschi's theory of control, Matza's neutralization theory, Luhmann's systemic theory, and also with the traditional penal law theories under which evil has to be compensated by punishment, but compensation involving suffering prohibits a better arrangement of social relartions. Instead, reparatory justice balances the harm involved in crime through action aimed at compensation and “doing good” (Ch. Pelikan, B.D. Meier). M. Wright stresses that this conception largely tallies with the common-sense ideas as to how society should react to crime, supported by appropriate actions, analysis, and studies. Mediation and other restorative reactions are sometimes shown as responses that function instead, parallel or within the traditional justice system. Much speaks, however, for integration of reparatory justice with the criminal justice system. The approach that isolates mediation altogether from criminal justice pays insufficient attention to the danger of inequality of the parties to mediation in the area of efficient execution of their conflicting interests. Thus public interest requires that the course and results of mediation proceedings be supervised. The manner in which reparatory justice may replace repressive one depends first and foremost on the seriousness of crime. It is not in all cases that a purely reparatory reaction should be recommended as sufficient. This is among the frequent arguments of critics of reparatory justice (although even its supporters accept the existence of limits to its application). Skeptics also stress that reparatory justice violates a number of generally accepted rules of procedure, especially that of equality before the law (which, however, could be disputed) and the offender’s procedural rights due to him in criminal proceedings (which is in fact a weakness of reparatory justice, but collisions might be solved by appropriate rules and standards of the reparatory process or e.g. by judicial review of negotiated solutions). The conception of reparatory justice is often explicated through opposition of the basic models of reaction to crime (although faulty in some respects, this method well illustrates the most fundamental features). Reparatory justice is sometimes called the "third path'', an alternative to the (neo-) retributive penal law and the rehabilitation model which proves ineffective, and a fully mature self-standing model (L. Walgrave, I. Aertsen). M. Wright stressed two spccial ideas that distinguish reparatory justice from the traditional criminal justice system. The first of them is that the process itself constitutes an essential element of the reaction, that it is constructive and may even have a therapeutic importance. The other idea is compensation interpreted in a much broader sense - from symbolic actions such as work to those reducing the risk of the offender relapsing into crime. The justification and legitimization of mediation in criminal cases bases not only on new theorietical conceptions. Such justification can also be found in the assumptions of the traditional justice system. This is what B.D. Meier did assuming as his point of departure the penal law system's public function, including in particular that of restoring public order that has been violated through crime, and also that of preventing repeated violations. The traditional systems have always provided for two or three different models of reaction to crime. Prevalent is punishment imposed on the person who has been found guilty. The second model involves imposition of special measures irrespective of the offender's liability (security and preventive measures). The third model, of crucial importance for legitimization of mediation in the criminal justice system, consists in renouncing formal proceedings, e.g. in view of slight social harmfulness of the act, the fact that no public interest is involved in the imposition of penalty, or reasons of general and special prevention. According to T. Marshall, justifications of reparatory justice (fulfilled i.a. through mediation) should be sought in the community nature of the offence and its effects. Explaining the theoretical foundations of mediation between the victim and the offender is a complex task because of the multitude of its sources as well as theories and conceptions quoted, and particularly because of the lack of agreement as to the essence of the usually quoted conception of reparatory justice and as to its treatment as "competitive'' with fespect to traditional justice or (for which interpretation I would like to declare) as that system's highly profitable logical supplementation, improvement and expansion. Also in Poland, the practice of actions involving mediation have outpaced the theory: for several years now, there has been quite a rapid growth in its application in practice. In both spheres, there are many problems and challenges worth taking up. At the same time, expanding the theory is of importance for the practice. Explanation of the ideas, aims and foundations of mediation and of its position with respect to traditional justice is paramount for the institution's reasonable development, evaluation and shaping towards its meeting the expectations

Mediacja – zmiana sposobu myślenia prawników o sprawiedliwości

Temat „Mediacja – zmiana sposobu myślenia prawników o sprawiedliwości” postawiono na konferencji Ministra Sprawiedliwości przy udziale Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, Rzecznika Praw Dziecka i Społecznej Rady ds. ADR przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości z okazji Międzynarodowego Dnia Mediacji, pod tytułem „Mediacja – inna forma sprawiedliwości” w dniu 17 października 2012 r. w Warszawie

Juveniles at the cross-roads reoffending-desistance. Role of mediation – example from Poland

Research on juveniles reoffending, especially in respect to restorative justice practices, are being led in certain countries regularly, in other not. Although the last is rather truth for Poland, longitudinal research on careers of former juveniles participating in mediation has been completed in 2013. Firstly, their reoffending has been checked in 1- 2,5 years period after mediation – then the percentage of reoffending was not high (14,4%), even if compared with research in other countries. Ten years after mediation, about one third (36, 2%) of former juveniles has been punished. Most of this part (40%) has committed single and less serious offense (there was more offenses against property). Only in 10% of the examined group criminality was intensified (however in their case there were risk factors – lack of profession or of work). Drop in number of sentenced persons after 24 year of age confirms the phenomenon of aging-out. Foreign research, even if some were evaluated as fragmentary or methodologically imperfect, are convincing, that taking part in mediation influences desistance, and even if not, less offenses are being committed and of less serious character. Results of Polish research, with two-third of those who succeed to desist offending and with high percentage of less serious offenses may support this thesis, however should be confirmed with more complex evaluation

Will the space for mediation in juvenile offenders cases change?

Mediacja między pokrzywdzonym a nieletnim sprawcą jest w Polsce pomimo jej pozytywnych rezultatów bardzo rzadko stosowana. Należy zatem przeanalizować jej perspektywy i bariery. Przestrzeń dla mediacji można określić, uwzględniając jej prawne unormowanie, politykę reagowania na przestępczość nieletnich, akceptowanie mediacji przez stosujących prawo oraz przez społeczeństwo, zaangażowanie społeczników. W artykule przeanalizowano nowe regulacje dotyczące mediacji w ustawie o wspieraniu i resocjalizacji nieletnich, które – wbrew deklaracjom zawartym w jej uzasadnieniu – wydają się nie sprzyjać częstszemu stosowaniu mediacjiVictim-offender mediation in juvenile cases is rarely applied in Poland, in spite of the positive results it brings. Therefore, the prospects of it and barriers to it need to be analysed. Space for mediation can be determined by taking into account its legal framework, the existing policy towards juvenile offending, the acceptance of mediation by magistrates and by society as a whole, and the involvement of NGOs in the process. The article in particular analyses new regulations of mediation in the law on rehabilitation and support for juveniles, that – in contrary to what is contained in the substantiation of the law – seem not to encourage wider use of mediation

Mediacja – zmiana sposobu myślenia prawników o sprawiedliwości

Temat „Mediacja – zmiana sposobu myślenia prawników o sprawiedliwości” postawiono na konferencji Ministra Sprawiedliwości przy udziale Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, Rzecznika Praw Dziecka i Społecznej Rady ds. ADR przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości z okazji Międzynarodowego Dnia Mediacji, pod tytułem „Mediacja – inna forma sprawiedliwości” w dniu 17 października 2012 r. w Warszawie

Analysis of proceedings in criminal courts and in juvenile courts in selected cases of criminal deeds committed by perpetrators between15 and17 years

The article describes results of research made in Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości (Institute of Justice) which aimed to specify factors and circumstances influencing tougher penalties for wrongful deeds committed by persons between 15 and 16 years old and to draft a profile of juvenile perpetrators of most dangerous criminal deeds. 292 cases were analysed, of which 71 in criminal courts and 221 in family courts . Cases concerned wrongful deeds under article 10 paragraph 3 of criminal code as of 2004-2008. 375 juvenile perpetrators were studied, of which 134 cases were judged in care and education proceedings, 114 cases in correctional proceedings, and 82 juvenile delinquents were tried in a criminal court. The file research questionnaire included seven parts to examine: the wrongful deed and circumstances of its commitment, characteristics of the juvenile delinquent, information about the injured persons, the course of the preparatory proceedings, proceedings before the court, and the sentenced measures and appeal against them. Information obtained from the research allowed for numerous conclusions. Most of all, it allowed to evaluate the practice of sentencing in cases of juvenile perpetrators of most serious crimes, in particular to evaluate the possibility to sentence the juvenile delinquent under article 10 paragraph 2 of the criminal code. In general, this evaluation is positive. It also appeared that the policy of exceptional penal measures for under age persons has remained the same in the recent years. The cases are not numerous, just as they were not in the past, which supports the idea that possibility of bringing juvenile delinquents to the criminal court is used rather cautiously and as an exception to the rule, in cases of the most drastic character and committed by more demoralized young persons who committed crimes under influence of alcohol, used violence, and dangerous tools. The juvenile who were tried in criminal courts, more often than ones who were tried in family courts, cooperated with adults and acted to the detriment of adults (they caused death of the victim in one fifth of cases ). More of them had been tried in family courts, and educational or correctional measures had failed. In 95% of the cases tried in crim-inal courts the researchers were convinced of the rightness of such method of treatment, and only in few cases tried in family courts there were doubts if not using the article 10 paragraph 2 of criminal code was right because of definitely negative prediction and serious character of the wrongful deed. Assessment if decision was right was difficult as information in the court files were laconic and sporadically even lacked sufficient personal information – particularly in cases qualified for care and education proceedings