 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||
Victim–Offender mediation is a process that provides victims the opportunity to meet their offenders in a safe and structured setting for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000). The goal of this process is twofold. The first is to hold the offenders directly accountable for their behavior, learn the full impact of their actions, and develop plans for making amends to the person or persons they violated. The second goal is to foster a sense of empowerment for the victim. Overall, this process is designed to develop empathy in the offender (which can help prevent future criminal behavior) and address the emotional and informational needs of the victim.
Mediation programs have been used for more than 20 years for various conflict situations.. Today there are more than 300 victim programs throughout the United States and more than 700 in Europe (Umbreit et al., 2000). Although these programs vary substantially, all victim–offender mediation programs share one unique feature: the purpose of victim–offender mediation is not to determine guilt (generally, guilt has already been determined in another forum), rather it is to teach the offender to accept responsibility and repair harm.
The mediation session(s) involves a dialogue between the victim and the offender, facilitated by a professional mediator. The purpose of dialogue is to actively involve the victim and the offender in repairing (to the degree possible) the emotional and material harm caused by the crime. It also provides an opportunity for both victims and offenders to discuss offenses and express their feelings and for victims to get answers to their questions. Finally, the dialogue presents an opportunity for victims and offenders to develop mutually acceptable restitution plans that address the harm caused by the crime. More than 95 percent of victim–offender mediation sessions result in a signed restitution agreement (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000). However, research has consistently found that the restitution agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to express their feelings about the offense directly to the offenders (Umbreit and Greenwood, 2000).
A considerable amount of research demonstrates that the victim–offender mediation process produces several positive effects for both victims and offenders. In general, victims who meet their offenders tend to be more satisfied with the process than victims whose cases are handled in the formal justice system (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b) and are less fearful of being re-victimized (Unmbriet and Roberts, 1996; Umbreit and Coates, 1993; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b). Similarly, offenders who meet their victims through mediation are far more likely to be held directly accountable for their behavior (Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b; Marshall and Merry, 1990), successfully complete their restitution obligations (Umbreit and Coates, 1992), subsequently commit fewer and less serious crimes (Pate 1990; Nugent and Paddock, 1995; Schneider, 1986; and Umbreit, 1994a and 1994b); and are satisfied with both the process and outcome of victim–offender mediation (Coates and Gehm, 1989; Marshall, 1990; Umbreit and Coates, 1993).