3. The start
The mediation and reconciliation service in Norway is a
product of the debates of the 1970s and 1980s
concerning criminal policy, but also the child welfare
service.
Professor Nils Christie
- Conflicts as Property, 1976
- Professionals, mainly legal experts steeling the conflicts from
their rightful owners, i.e. the people
- The vicitims’ and the offenders’ rights to their own conflicts
should be restored
- Conflicts represent a potential for activity, learning and
participation
4. History
White paper on criminal policy in 1977 – how to prevent young
offenders from beeing imprisoned
Director of Public Prosecutions asks the question whether the
traditional criminal legislation is adapted to young offenders
Project in Buskerud ”Alternative to imprisonment of young
offenders”
1988: Director of Public Prosecutions suggests that mediation
should be regulated by law
Act on mediation 15. mars 1991
1th of January 2004 – Mediation Service is organised as part of
the state, placed under the Ministry of Police and Justice
5. The Mediation Services as part of the
Justice System
Ministry of Justice and the Police
Department
of Civil Affairs
National Mediation Service
(directorate/central
administration)
6. The task according to the Act (1991)
The Mediation Service shall mediate in disputes which
arise as a result of one or more persons causing loss or
damage or other offences against a third party.
Opens for both criminal cases and civil cases
All kinds of civil cases
7. It is laid down in the Act and the
Regulations that
The central government is responsible for and
covers the expenses of the (National) Mediation
Service offices
The Mediation Service is organized into three
levels;
- the Mediation Service offices at the local level
- the National Mediation Service at the central level
- the Ministry of Justice as the superior responsible body
8. Objectives
Give the parties themselves an opportunity to take part
in resolving the issue
Find solutions and agreements between the parties
Offer a fast reaction to crime and conflicts
Prevent re-offending
Giving both the victim and the offender a role
9. Why mediation?
Conflicts is a part of human society and mediation is a
good way to handle it
A negative conflict can be turned into a positive social
force (Christie)
Reducing the use of punitive efforts in criminal cases
Positive effects for victims
Building civil structures in society in coping with conflicts
and crime
For politics and bureaucrats:
Reducing the caseload for the court system
Reducing costs
10. Professional responsibility
Training of mediators
Careful selection of suitable mediators
Training programmes with certified trainers
Continuous evaluation and discussion in the service
Training for new methods
Conferencing
Training for trainers
Other types of courses
Coaching
Conflict management
Peer mediation
11. How can cases be referred to the
Mediation Service?
Alternative to other criminal prosecution
Supplement to other sanctions
Part of a sentence with community service
Condition in a suspended sentence
Civil case as a supplement to a criminal case
Civil case
12. Phases in mediation
1 Introduction
2 What happened? Past
What were you thinking?
What were you feeling?
3 What do you think now?
Who has been affected? Presence
4 Do you have any suggestions for a
solution?
What do you need to do now? Future
5 Agreement
13. The lay mediators
Public duty, appointed for 4 years
Minimum age 18 years
Based in the community
Knowledge of local society
Have some idealistic reasons for being a mediator
Personal suitable to be a mediator is the most important
Key words: facilitator of process, impartiality, open-minded,
empathy
No demands for academic or other formal competence
The group of mediators should reflect the society
Age, Education, Experience, Religion, Ethnic origin
Training and guidance from administration
14. A mediatior
Mohammed Jawari, former mediator and now speaker in
Parlament back in his homeland Somalia
16. Cases and results 2011
8271 cases
About 50% criminal cases and 50% civil cases
80% of cases from police and prosecution authority
Agreements in abt. 89% of cases
Abt 96 % of the agreements are fulfilled
42 % of the offenders are under the age of 18
17. Types of cases - 2011
Type of cases
Other offences
Other conflicts 337 Shoplifting
601 4% 928
7% 11% Other petty thef
274
Family conflicts 3%
431
Aggravated theft
5%
283
3%
Neighbourhood conflicts Vehicle theft
60 77
1% s 1%
Serial offence
60
Vandalism
1%
1045
13%
Economic offences
695 Burglery
8% 106
1%
Threats/bullying
1081
13%
Violence
1795
23%
21. Restorative Justice
Definition
Restorative Justice is a process whereby parties eith a stake in
a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the
aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.
(Tony Marshall ”Restorative Justice: an overview” 1999)
Restorative justice is the umbrella covering a range of
methods and tools.
Restorative justice is not a method itself but more a way of
thinking which looks at the crime more as a conflict than a
breach of law.
22. Two different views
(H. Zehr ”Restorative Justice”)
Criminal justice Restorative Justice
Crime is a violation of the law and the Crime is a violation of people and
state relationsships
Violations create guilt Violations create obligations
Justice requires the state to determine Justice involves victims, offenders and
blame (guilt) and impose pain community members in an effort to put
(punishment) things right
Central focus: Central focus:
Offenders getting what they deserve Victim needs and offenders responsibility
for repairing harm
23. Three different questions (H. Zehr ”Restorative Justice”)
Criminal justice Restorative Justice
What laws have been broken? Who has been hurt?
Who did it? What are their needs?
What do they deserve? Whose obligations are these?
24. Mediation and conferencing
Mediation
Two or more parties (with support person, parents)
Conferencing
Script based on specific questions in a specific order
Affected parties involved
Network involved
25. Key elements in Restorative Justice
Three pillars of restorative justice
Harms and needs Obligations Engagement
26. Key questions in Restorative Justice
1. What happened?
2. What were you thinking?
3. What were you feeling?
4. Who has been affected?
5. What do you need to do now?
27. Who might the participants be?
Persons that are related to the parties and affected by
the incident (direct or indirect)
Persons in local communities that may support the
parties.
Persons that the parties want to be presence in the
conference.
Possible participants
familiy, neighbours, colleges, football trainers …
police, child care, health workers, teachers …
28. RJ implies that:
Perspectives to both offender and victim are considered
All parties are responsible in resolving the case
Affected parties are included
Network is included
29. Mediation versus conferencing
Common
Both methods give an opportunity for dialogue between parties
with an impartial facilitator present.
Both methods gives the offender and the victim an opportunity
to handle a conflict or a criminal act.
There is no difference between mediation and conferencing
regarding types of cases
Conferencing allows in addition:
A possibility to include persons that are important in resolving
the case
Show consequenses of actions
Strenghten the network around the parties
The script ensures that the hole group is included in the process
The parties decide whether mediation or conferencing is
the most appropriate method in a case.
30. Benefits with Restorative Justice
Volunteer for all parties
Handling conflicts at a low level
Both the offender and the victim has a role
Predictability
Increased understanding of consequences of actions
Increased safety for the victim
Restoring relations
Ownership to the solution and agreement
EMPOWERMENT
Accountability of networks and communities
Economically efficient
Crime prevention
31. Separate projects
Juvenile Conferencing
Juvenile Sanction
Tolerance and Conflict solution in a multicultural society
International training
Peer mediation
Domestic violence
32. Juvenile Conferencing and follow-up
Conferencing applied systematically for juveniles,
including follow-up (contract)
Started in Sør-Trøndelag as a pilot project in 2006
Gain; All experts are meeting at the same time with the
young one.
Representatives from central institutions like police,
child care service, school, youth field-workers –and
family/private network.
Creates a comprehensive plan; clear agreements on job-
shearing between the professionals towards the juvenile,
and the juvenile has a say in the planning, and must
actively take responsibility.
The police has realised that paying attention to the
victim is also a positive asset in the rehabilitation work
with the offender.
33. Juvenile Conferencing
En unik plattform for tverrfaglig samarbeid
A unique platform for Interdiciplinary cooperation
34. Juvenile Conferencing
4 local projects 2005 – 2007
The follow-up-teams hit the target
group
A high-risk group of young people who
has a history of non-profitting on
intervention/helping-meassures
Recedive – results are good
More than 55 % have no breaches of
law or individually tailored conditions
after being taken into a follow-up team