13
Tim Chapman University of Ulster

Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

III Jornada de Justícia Restaurativa Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 18 de març de 2014

Citation preview

Page 1: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Tim Chapman

University of Ulster

Page 2: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* Latin Mediare – to be in the middle or centre

* An intervention designed to bring about a settlement or compromise between people in dispute.

* Latin Conferre – to bring together: ferre means to carry

* A meeting bringing together people with a common interest in restoring what has been violated, lost or damaged by an injustice.

Page 3: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Victim Offender Narrative Family Group Restorative RestorativeMediation Mediation Conferences Conferences Circles

The critical importance of context and culture

Script orNarrative Model

Page 4: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Community system* Community Restorative Justice Ireland* Alternatives NISchool systemChildren’s Services* Family Group Conferences* Children’s UnitsState system* Low risk – Police restorative cautioning * Medium risk – Public Prosecution Service referral for diversionary conference by

Youth Conference Service* High risk – Youth Court referral by Youth Conference Service* Priority young offenders programme* Probation Service* Prison Service – rehabilitation and resettlement

Page 5: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

*Statutory since 2003

*Mainstream within the youth justice system

*Prosecution referred

*Youth court referred

*Offenders and victims decide

*All offences other than those with a mandatory sentence

*Referrals and ratification by PPS or Youth Court

Page 6: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

*15,000 youth conferences since 2003High victim participation90%+ victim satisfactionHigh completion rate (95%)

*Reoffending rates (2008) within one year:Custody – 68.3%Community based disposals – 53.5%Youth Conference Orders – 45.4%Diversionary conference plans – 29.5%

Page 7: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Harm

Community

Person responsible for harm Injured party

Community safety and reintegration

Reducing risk and working towards a better life

Accountability, protection and repairing the harm

Page 8: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* Focus on crime as a conflict between two people which should be settled privately.

* Focus on crime as harm and the aim of reducing suffering and preventing further suffering. Recognises the ‘ripple’ effect of harm on others and that harm has a social context and public significance. Draws on criminological theory – stigma, desistance, reintegration.

Page 9: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* The key parties are the offender and the victim

* Key parties include the offender, the victim and the community and each party’s community of support. Does not always include the direct victim

Page 10: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* Preparation – explanation of the process, consent, clarifying positions and expectations.

* Meeting – not always necessary or desirable. * establishment of ground rules framing the

boundaries of mediation* parties detail their stories* identification of issues* clarify and detail respective interests and

objectives* search for objective criteria* identify options* discuss and analyze solutions* adjust and refine proposed solutions* record agreement in writing* Ratification and Review

* Preparation - High priority given to preparation. Focus on the harm and “Thickening the Story”. truth. Truth is both forensic and narrative. Attention to emotions, needs, questions and requests.

* Conference – Face to face desirable.* Ground rules and statement of facts* Person responsible for harm makes self

accountable to the persons whom they have harmed.

* This means the parties’ stories are questions are critical. Inquiry into empathy, remorse and connection.

* Dialogue mat transform the truth, identify and clarify needs and generate agreed actions.

* Ratification * Supervision and support

Page 11: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* Conflict is normal and the mediator is morally neutral about it and impartial towards the parties.

* But also proactive and strategic in negotiating a settlement.

* The mediator is ‘in the middle’.

* Openly against harm and the suffering it causes.

* The person is not the problem; the problem is the problem.

* On everyone’s side. Everyone’s needs must be met.

* The process enables the parties to have their needs met.

* The facilitator should ‘get out of the way’ and trust the process.

* The harm is ‘in the middle’.

Page 12: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

* A resolution to the conflict which is satisfactory to the parties and in some cases the court.

* An agreed plan to address the consequences and the causes of the harm which is satisfactory to all parties and to the public, prosecutor or the court.

* Victim satisfaction and reduced reoffending

* Civic culture of respect and responsibility

* Greater social cohesion

Page 13: Comparing victim offender mediation and restorative conferences. Tim Chapman

Thank you