Mediation as an Adversarial Criminal Resolution Method A Comparative Analysis

Criminal Mediation is a modern legal system that aims to solve criminal disputes through nontraditional means. Such a system can help in avoiding the regular adjudication of crimes via courts. This system was initially applied in Canada in 1974, then in the United States in 1978. Later on, it started to be implemented in nearly all European countries. This system is based on the idea of solving criminal disputes away from the court\u27s process, but at the same time under its supervision. This operation is assigned to a mediator who meets both parties in order to reach an agreement between them. In other words, this system will not ever be applied unless the parties of the dispute have agreed on this. The case will accordingly be closed, if the parties reach an adequate agreement. As a result, this system saves time, effort, and expense besides reducing the number of cases to be tried judicially. In conclusion, in those states which have so far applied this system, criminal mediation has proved its effectiveness and efficiency for all parties including the defendant, the plaintiff and society

Application, with immediate effect, of the organization and the jurisdiction rules in criminal courts

The time scale of criminal law rule is determined according to its beginning moment and its end moment. The problem which arises is validity of these rules in terms of time when several rules dealing with the same subject come into force respectively. This issue arises specifically in a limited period of time between the date of the crime committed and the date of the final judgment issued. The rules of criminal jurisdiction organize procedural matter related to criminal courts, criminal jurisdiction and public persecution. Because of its procedural nature, they are subject to the immediate effect principle which governs the force of criminal procedural rules in term of time. Controversy and argument at the level of legal jurisprudence and the judiciary regarding the immediate effect provisions arise. Whatever the good opinion in this regard, the legislator should interfere by imposing transitional provisions to deal with such matters in order to remedy some of the practical and legal difficulties which may arise. This approach saves time, effort and expense. Moreover, it avoids suspicion of interfering in the work of the judiciary, or influencing its judgment