"Restorative Justice is a more humane justice, which takes people into account and not just file numbers."
Virginia Domingo She is an expert in restorative justice and criminal mediation, as well as a member of GEMME, coordinator of the criminal mediation service of Castilla y León and also president of the Restorative Justice Institute-AMEPAX. President of the first entity created in Spain dedicated to the study, research and advice in restorative justice, Scientific Society of Restorative Justice. His latest published book is titled "Restorative Justice, much more than mediation", with a foreword by Howard Zehr.
To what types of conflicts is criminal mediation applied?
A: Criminal mediation, in principle, can be applied to any crime regardless of its seriousness. It should be a universal right for any victim regardless of the crime suffered. It is true that to begin with it is advisable to do so with lighter crimes because experience in criminal mediation is very important, perhaps more than in other types of mediation. More than the type of crime and its severity, each specific case should be examined to assess, according to its circumstances, and those of the victim and the offender, whether criminal mediation is viable or not. In minor crimes, criminal mediation would be an alternative, in serious crimes it would be a complement to traditional criminal justice..
[quote style=»boxed» float=»right»]»Criminal mediators cannot be neutral regarding the damage that has been caused, but they do care and support all parties«[/quote]
What is the difference between what a criminal mediator does and a civil and commercial mediator?
A: Firstly, in other mediations we work on the hypothesis that both contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the conflict and both must compromise to reach a solution. In these cases, mediation focuses on finding solutions rather than seeing the impact that the conflict has had on the lives of the participants. On the other hand, in criminal mediation generally one has committed a crime and has admitted it and the other has been a victim. Therefore, the question of guilt or innocence is not going to be mediated. There are also no expectations or commitments for the victim to ask for or settle for less than what they need to deal with their losses, nor has the victim been at fault in suffering the crime. There is in itself a certain power imbalance, facilitators or mediators cannot be neutral or impartial with respect to the harm that has been caused, but they do care and support all parties, equally. As Gustafson says, it will be a balanced bias.
[quote style=»boxed» float=»left»]»Most criminal mediation sessions (more than 95%) end with an agreement for restitution or reparation of damage«[/quote]
Second, while other mediations are largely “solution driven,” criminal mediation is primarily a “dialogue driven” with emphasis on victim healing, offender accountability, and restoration of losses. Most criminal mediation sessions (more than 95%) end with an agreement for restitution or reparation of damage. This agreement, however, is secondary to what is really important: the dialogue between victim and offender, which basically addresses emotional information and what victims' needs are essential. for healing and to face the meeting with the offender, which can also lead to less criminal behavior in the future. It is clear therefore that mediation in criminal matters as a restorative tool is different from other mediations and must be inspired by the principles and philosophy of Restorative Justice.
What advantages does Restorative Justice have over ordinary jurisdiction?
A: Restorative Justice is a more humane justice, which takes people into account and not just file numbers, meets the needs of victims in the best way and for this gives them a voice and prioritizes their moral and material reparation, but it also powers a active and constructive attitude of the offender through their responsibility. It is not a panacea, but getting the offender to assume responsibility and recognize that they caused harm to another person is an important step for their reintegration into society, and of course it is an educational way to prevent new crimes. With this, the victim will feel safer and the community will also feel safer because there will be fewer possibilities of becoming future victims.
Does criminal mediation adequately protect crime victims?
A: Precisely, criminal mediation as a tool of Restorative Justice (not the only one) arises by and for the victims. First, attend, help, listen and seek repair or compensation for the damage in the most convenient way for each victim, because just as each person is different from another, each victim suffers the crime in a different way.
The Traditional justice It focuses on 3 fundamental questions:
What rule has been violated?
Who has done it?
What punishment do the authors deserve?
Instead, the Restorative Justice and tools like criminal mediation they focus on:
Who was harmed?
What are the needs of the injured person?
Who has the obligation to satisfy these needs?
Clearly, criminal mediation returns the spotlight to those really affected by crime and prioritizes its reparation. The offender is also important but because he must repair the damage as a socially constructive benefit, and if he does so voluntarily he could obtain some legal benefit (of course contemplated by law), but above all, what is essential is attended to first, those who suffer. .
[quote style=»boxed» float=»right»]»For an offender, seeing the real impact that their crime has caused is more reintegrating than any punishment or sentence, because they regain their humanity and empathy.«[/quote]
Could you say from your own experience that agreements reached through criminal mediation are more satisfactory and lasting than a sentence?
A: It is true that not only are they more satisfactory but the percentage of compliance is total, for several reasons: it is not an obligation imposed by a third party unrelated to the crime (the judge) but is the result of a completely voluntary agreement between victim and offender, in a meeting in which the offender has been able to put “face and story” to the victim and where he has been able to realize that he can no longer minimize the effects of the crime. For many offenders, seeing the real impact that their crime has caused is more reintegrating than any punishment or sentence, because they recover their humanity and values such as empathy; This means that agreements and the obligation to repair damage are not seen as an obligation, but as a socially constructive benefit, because whoever does something wrong has the duty to mitigate that damage. Also from my experience it surprises me that the majority of victims do not want material or economic settlements, but rather that many of them care about others and what they usually ask for is a commitment from the offender not to repeat the crime.
Where do you think there is more work to do to finish implementing and consolidating criminal mediation: in society or within the courts themselves?
A: A lot of work is needed to transmit what criminal mediation truly is, its differences with other mediations and that it is based on a philosophy that is Restorative Justice. I see with concern how concepts are often confused and this can be harmful because many victims are left with the mistaken idea that with criminal mediation we want to be soft on offenders, and this is not so, but quite the opposite.
The essential thing is the collaboration of the media and that they convey to ordinary citizens what the benefits of Restorative Justice and its different tools are, because I am convinced that if the concepts are conveyed well, people will be in favor. What's more, where mediation can work the most is in the criminal field, yes, otherwise concepts are confused and it is not regulated in an erroneous way but rather flexible to adapt it to each case and each victim and offender.
Remember that the EIM mediation courses They are accredited before the Ministry of Justice!
