How Mediation Can Serve Worker's Compensation - Essay Example

Victim-Offender Mediation Programs (also known as Victim Offender Resolution Programs) Number 22 August Introduction Over the years, different mediation practices have been used to resolve different kinds of disputes, conflicts or disagreements. Mediation is important as it yields satisfaction and brings about fairness in the criminal justice system and neighborhoods and within families. The victim-offender mediation programs fall under restorative justice. The program is also known as the victim-offender reconciliation program (VORP). The use of the program was pioneered by Canada and the United States in the 1970s.1 In the program, the victim and offender usually meet in the presence of a facilitator to address their dispute and to examine significant ways of resolving it where the offender can fairly compensate the victim. Victim-Offender mediation programs are divided into a number of stages. In all programs however, the first step begins with the referral of an offender to the program, which is usually done by victim assistance staffers or prosecutors or parole officers or judges. Trained mediators are also sought. Before the trained facilitator meets with the victim and offenders for a mediation session, he meets each of them separately and hears the side of each individual. During this meeting, the facilitator explains the program to the individual and encourages the participation of the individual. Through these meetings, the facilitator gains the trust of the victim and offender and is able to create a rapport. After this separate meeting, the victim and offender agree to participate in the reconciliation program and a face-to-face meeting is scheduled by the facilitator. In regard to its history, the victim-offender reconciliation program was first established in Canada in 1974, and in 1978, it was established in the United States.2 Today, the United States has approximately 300 victim-offender reconciliation programs. The reason behind the program’s success in the United States is the fact that accepted the principle of restorative justice. The programs emerged from early dispute resolution programs that were the initial forms of restorative justice. Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program Models The Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs are categorized into four models. These are church-based programs, community-based programs, probation–based or system-based programs and dispute settlement centers.3 Church-based victim-offender reconciliation programs are based on biblical principles of renewal, reconciliation and pardon and use volunteers. They are viewed as the best by victim-offender reconciliation program advocates.4 This is due to the fact that they operate from a Christian perspective of making peace. They also prevent against program homogenization. In reference to funding, church-based programs do not receive any funding from the government. Rather, funding and sponsorship comes from churches. This is despite the fact that most of the disputes they resolve come from referrals from authorities in the criminal justice system. Community-based victim-offender reconciliation programs are based on ethical principles of peace and unity in communities. They are viewed as the second best coming after church-based programs. In comparison to victim-offender reconciliation programs run by the state, community-based programs possess and present greater potential in terms of helping victims and offenders undergo true healing. This is because the spirit of victim-offender reconciliation is bolstered by the community and is more preferred in terms of organization and funding in comparison to programs funded by the criminal justice system, despite the fact that it involves a lot of effort.5 Most community-based victim-offender reconciliation programs are formed by private non-profit organizations despite the fact that they directly work with the criminal justice system. The private non-profit organizations select and train volunteers to work as facilitators or mediators. In part, the reason behind the running of community-based programs by private non-profit organizations is the hardship experienced in raising funds. System-based or probation based victim-offender reconciliation programs are also based on the principles of peace and unity in communities. They are run by correctional agencies. The staff members in this kind of system are usually employees working in the criminal justice system.6 However the people who work as facilitators or mediators are usually community volunteers who are trained in conflict resolution and possess conflict resolution skills. Referrals into these programs are usually made by sponsoring justice system agencies. System-based victim-offender reconciliation programs usually have a number of aims. First, they reduce the courts caseload by diverting cases from them. Second, they give way to more appropriate processes of handling cases according to their classifications. Third, they provide accessible and more efficient services to citizens. Four, they reduce the criminal justice system’s case processing expenditure. Finally, they boost the satisfaction of citizens with the criminal justice system. Typically, dispute settlement centers are agencies that put forward their services to victim-offender reconciliation. In the United States, there are approximately a hundred and fifty dispute settlement centers with most of them offering facilities for delinquency mediation.7 The Orange county dispute settlement center was the first to be established in the United States and this took place in 1978. The establishment of the center encouraged the formation of other centers in North Carolina and across the nation. Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program Phases The Victim-Offender Reconciliation process is categorized into four phases. These include case referral and intake, preparation for reconciliation, reconciliation or mediation and follow-up. The typical victim-offender reconciliation program begins when a criminal justice agency or representative refers an offender to a reconciliation program.8 This phase is known as the intake phase. The most probable referral agency is usually the probation office. Offences and disputes referred to the victim-offender reconciliation program vary. However, disputes involving small enterprises or individuals and property disputes such as vandalism, theft, commercial and residential burglary are the most common. Other types of crimes referred to the program include crimes against individuals. The criterion for selection of a case to be referred to the victim-offender reconciliation program is almost the same for a variety of programs. However, most of them are considered on the basis of whether a loss is identifiable and if there is need to compensation. For most programs, a case is accepted after the offender pleads guilty in court and is proven to be mentally sound, with no record of active substance abuse and with less than two past convictions. As part of deferred prosecution effort, some cases are referred to a victim-offender reconciliation program before the offender pleads guilty in court. The preparation for mediation phase usually starts when a case is assigned to a case manager or facilitator and concludes with the beginning of the initial actual reconciliation process. This phase begins with the facilitator creating a rapport and gaining the trust of both parties, that is, the victim and offender.9 For this reason, the facilitator first meets both parties separately and hears the story of each side. Here, he or she also takes the opportunity to tell the parties about the program and encourage their participation. It is during this time that the date for the actual reconciliation is scheduled by the facilitator with both the victim and the offender. Commonly, victims usually request for more time to consider whether to participate in the program.10 In fact, very few make decisions to participate immediately after individually meeting the facilitator. Most victims prefer not to undergo a confrontation with their offenders. The facilitator has the right to make efforts to persuade the victim by assuring him of the benefits of the program, but the final decision usually lies on the victim. It is also common for victims to agree to participate in the program only to withdraw later. This calls for a lot of sensitivity on the part of the facilitator even in terms of scheduling meetings and choosing a meeting location. In fact, the victim should have options at his or her disposal and the process should empower him or her. The reconciliation phase begins when the victim and offender have their first meeting in the presence of a trained facilitator and concludes when the referring agency approves an agreement between the victim and offender.11 The approval can be a condition of probation or as a component of a deferred prosecution program. In this phase, four main tasks have to be accomplished. They include carrying out the mediation session, getting the signatures of the victim and offender in regard to their compensation agreement, getting a follow up conference where necessary and handing over the agreement to the referring agency. In the beginning of the meeting, the facilitator makes the ground rules known to both the victim and offender, identifies the meeting’s agenda and defines his role. After this, both the victim and offender are given a chance to describe what happened at the time of the commitment of the crime in question each in a turn. In the description, each individual opens up about his reactions, injuries, harm or losses suffered and that led to the situation being defined as a crime and the options available for compensation. A reconciliation session usually ends with a discussion of the possibility of coming up with a mutually agreeable compensation plan, which may involve offender’s charity work in a charity chosen by the victim, work or money. The follow up phase ensures that the compensation agreement is honored.12 In case further conflict arises between the victim and offender, intervention is performed. Additionally and where necessary, a follow up victim-offender meeting is scheduled. During this phase, the victim is regularly contacted to check whether he is satisfied with the compensation agreement. Benefits Among the key benefits of the victim-offender reconciliation programs is the fact that they make the criminal justice process human. Bringing the offender face-to-face with the victim makes him view his actions from a real perspective and this makes it extremely hard for him to rationalize his actions. The meeting also stimulates compassion from the offender especially after seeing the effects of the harm. This makes prevention of similar future crimes by the offender impossible. The meetings also serve as a relief to the offender, especially from the criminal label given to him after committing the crime. Overall, victim-offender reconciliation programs empower victims and reduce chances of offenders repeating their crimes in future. Additionally, the meetings give the victim and offender more understanding of each other’s humanity and this also changes the place of an offender in the community. Conclusion Victim-offender reconciliation programs are a great form of restorative justice. These programs aim at bringing about reconciliation between a victim and offender in regard to particular crimes, conflicts and disputes. The programs are categorized into four models namely church-based programs, community-based programs, probation–based or system-based programs and dispute settlement centers and the process is divided into four stages namely referral and intake, preparation for reconciliation, reconciliation or mediation, and follow-up. Victim-offender reconciliation programs are beneficial as they make the criminal justice process human, empower victims and reduce chances of offenders repeating their crimes in future. Daniel McGillis, Community Mediation Programs: Developments and Challenges. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, 1997. Daniel W. Van Ness & Karen Heetderks Strong, Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice. Waltham: Anderson Publishing, 2015. David W. Springer & Albert R. Roberts, Handbook of Forensic Mental Health with Victims and Offenders: Assessment , Treatment, and Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, 2007. Dennis Sullivan & Larry Tifft, Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. Oxon: Routledge, 2006. Frederic G. Reamer, Heinous Crime: Cases, Causes, and Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. John Howard Society of Alberta, Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs, (1998), available at http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/pdf/C27.pdf Klaus J. Hopt & Felix Steffek, Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Marilyn D. McShane & Franklin P. Williams, Victims of Crime and the Victimization Process. London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997. Michael L. Moffitt & Robert C. Bordone, The Handbook of Dispute Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Ruth Ann Strickland, Restorative Justice. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004. Steven Barkan & George Bryjak, Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Read More