Robert B. Coates

Cross-Site Analysis of Victim-Offender Mediation in Four States

This article reports on the first cross-site analysis of victim-offender mediation programs in the United States, working with juvenile courts in Albuquerque, Austin, Minneapolis, and Oakland. A total of 1,153 interviews were conducted with victims and offenders. These included pre- and postmediation interviews and the use of two comparison groups. Court officials were interviewed and 28 observations of mediations were conducted. The vast majority of victims and offenders experienced the mediation process and outcome as fair and were quite satisfied with it. Mediation resulted in significantly greater satisfaction and perceptions of fairness for victims, as well as significantly higher restitution completion by offenders, than found in comparison groups. Some implications for juvenile justice policy are offered.

Making amends : mediation and reparation in criminal justice

1. Introduction 2. Developments in England and Wales 3. Victim offender mediation: a review of the research in the United States 4. Victim offender mediation in the Federal Republic of Germany 6. The Exeter youth support team 7. The Totton reparation scheme 8. Dominant themes: diversion and mitigation 9. Neglected themes (one): negotiation and expiation 10. Neglected themes (2): the victim interest 11. Conclusion

Restorative justice dialogue: A multi-dimensional evidence-based practice theory

Restorative justice in the 21st century is a social movement that has moved far beyond its humble and rather marginal beginnings in North America and Europe more than a quarter of a century ago. Today restorative justice policies and practices are developing throughout the world in diverse cultural and national settings, with recent endorsements by the European Union and the United Nations. While still not the mainstream in any nation, restorative justice has clearly moved beyond the margins of social change in many locations and is beginning to enter the mainstream of criminal justice policy. The oldest, most widely used, and empirically grounded expression of this movement is restorative justice dialogue through victim–offender mediation, group conferencing, and peacemaking circles. These and related practices in which victims, offenders, support people, and other community participants have opportunities to enter into dialogue with each other to foster healing and the repair of harm represent the movement’s foundation, upon which many other restorative practices and policies are developing. This article describes the underlying characteristics of authentic restorative justice dialogue, including specific indicators of its presence. The article provides assistance to practitioners and policymakers who seek to address issues of program development, evaluation, and measurement.

Victims of severe violence meet the offender: restorative justice through dialogue

Both restorative justice in general and victim offender mediation specifically continue to be identified with primarily, if not exclusively, addressing non-violent property crimes, and perhaps even minor assaults. This article will challenge such assumptions by providing empirical evidence that suggests that many of the principles of restorative justice can be applied in crimes of severe violence, including murder. Some would even suggest that the deepest healing impact of restorative justice is to be found in addressing and responding to such violent crime. An increasing number of victims of sexual assault, attempted homicide, and survivors of murder victims, in Canada and the United States, are requesting the opportunity to meet the offender to express the full impact of the crime upon their life, to get answers to many questions they have and to gain a greater sense of closure so that they can move on with their lives. In most cases this occurs many years after the crime occurred and the actual mediation/dialogue session is typically held in a secure institution where the offender is located. This article addresses four topics. First, the case development process of victim sensitive offender dialogue (VSOD) in crimes of severe violence is described, with an emphasis of how the process is far more intensive in such cases. Second, the specific type of victim sensitive mediation employed in such cases is briefly presented. Humanistic mediation is ‘dialogue driven’ rather than ‘settlement driven’ and is essential to the application of restorative justice principles in cases of severe violence. Third, a review of the few current studies of such an intervention is offered, including preliminary data that is emerging from a two state multi-year study by the author. Fourth, two specific case studies related to the above research are presented with an emphasis upon implications for practitioners. Finally, several conclusions are offered, including a number of unanswered questions and the need for further research.

Victims of Severe Violence in Mediated Dialogue with Offender: The Impact of the First Multi-Site Study in the U.S.

A small but growing number of jurisdictions across the U.S. offer victims of severe violence, including homicide, the opportunity to meet in a mediated dialogue session with their offender if they so desire. Such meetings are victim initiated and involve extensive preparation of the parties. This article reports on an intensive qualitative five-year study of mediated dialogue participants in two of the first states in the U.S. to do so, Texas and Ohio. Descriptions of the two programs and key characteristics of participants are provided, along with outcome data related to the experience of both crime victims and offenders in mediated dialogue in the context of severely violent crime.

Restorative Justice versus Community Justice: Clarifying a Muddle or Generating Confusion?

While Paul McCold’s intent to clarify the compatibility of restorative justice and community justice conceptual frameworks is laudable, his effort provides as much confusion as clarity (McCold, 2004, this issue). This piece identifies some of the conflicts inherent in the roots of the development and growth of restorative justice. It also raises concerns regarding how restorative justice theoreticians and practitioners consider community, the role of strangers, empowerment, prevention, and punishment within restorative frameworks. The authors of this piece conclude that, while it remains important to safeguard the underlying principles of restorative justice, it is also necessary to remain open to new possibilities and to new ideas.

Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue

Hate promotes violence. Dialogue among conflicting parties and groups is one way to decrease hate and help prevent bias‐motivated crimes. Restorative justice has emerged in the last three decades as a means of giving all who are stake‐holders in a crime—victims, offenders, and the community to which they belong—a voice in how harm can be repaired and future harm prevented. The present article reports on a two‐year study of seven communities that utilized elements of a restorative justice dialogue approach as one component of responding to bias‐motivated crimes and hate‐charged situations. Following presentation of three case studies, the article highlights the invitational nature of such dialogue, the preparation of participants, and the dialogue process. It also examines factors that influence the dialogue, including the intense impact of hate crimes, the role of the media, and the involvement of outside interest groups. Finally, it explores ways to sustain the dialogue after the crisis recedes.