History Of Victim Offender Mediation

Throughout the history, the goals of corrections have evolved with society, moving from incapacitation which aimed to simply lock offenders up, to rehabilitation which aims to fix the offender, now restorative justice is gaining traction. The goal of restorative justice aims to “restore” the harm that was done to the victim by the offender. One of the main methods used to reconcile both parties and the community is through Victim-Offender Mediation, which offers a secure and structured environment that supports mediation with the help of a third party. Since the late 90’s interest in it has skyrocketed specifically its use of victim offender mediation. By 2000, there were 289 victim offender mediation programs in the United States, and another
It is important to note that while cases can be referred to this type of program, it is contingent on the victim's voluntary participation. This means that while mediation can be offered to the criminal as a condition of probation, or can be offered to the offender by a judge, the victim must agree to take part voluntarily (“Victim-Offender Mediation, 2007). While other types of meditation are settlement driven, this type is dialogue driven, and the mediator acts as a “mutual aid” by not taking sides, and using non-directive mediation that allows the victim and offender to openly talk without any expectations. Since its beginnings, officials have been skeptical about the process, however it has been made clear that it is not meant for certain crimes, and evidence for these serious, or violent crimes is small due to the either the the victim not wanting to participate, or these types of cases not being referred to mediation. The victims in some of the few cases of this nature that go to mediation have regarded the meeting as beneficial, because it allows closure, or allowed the victim to begin to move on. One victim, a school teacher who had been nearly killed in a brutal assault,
For example with this type of program there is a reduced impact of incarceration for community members, such as an incarcerated parent, and it helps reduce costs of incarceration in the justice system. For these reasons it would make sense to look at restorative justice as the new preferred approach, as opposed to more traditional systems that are in place now. However restorative justice, and more specifically victim offender mediation, there are limits on what it is capable of, due to its variable nature. There will always be cases that can not be mediated, there will always be victims who refuse to participate, and there will be cases in which an offender will not actively participate. In addition to this system having a fundamental flaw in being able to take on cases, the idea of victim offender mediation also does not take into account the that a victim may need more than a face-to-face meeting, or an apology from the offender who wronged them, or possibly traumatized them. Susan Herman spoke about restorative justice’s shortcomings at the International Symposium on Victimology. She gave numerous examples of the long term services a victim might need that victim offender mediation does not provide. Some of these examples are providing substance abuse treatment for someone who has turned to drugs after a traumatic