1. Developing penal juvenile mediation in an inclusive way: Empowering juveniles, families and communities
Ivo Aertsen
KU Leuven Institute of Criminology
Taller Preparatorio del XIV Congreso Mundial de Mediación y Cultura de Paz
Buenos Aires, 22 March 2018

2. Outline
Focus on the link between penal juvenile mediation and a culture of peace
Therefore, we consider mediation:
In an inclusive way: juvenile offenders, victims, families and communities
In an empowering perspective: not only for, but with
Three parts:
Practices of mediation with juveniles, strengths and weaknesses
The need to change the underlying paradigm: restorative justice and its models
How to work in mediation towards a culture of peace?

3. Practices of mediation with juveniles, strengths and weaknesses

4. Origins and development
In various countries, from 1970s onwards
Part of reforming (or creating) juvenile justice systems
A social work model predominates:
Offender focused
Objectives of the intervention: rehabilitation, education, prevention
Individualising approach
Mediation style: direct, orienting
Sometimes a more ‘neutral’ mediation model prevails, mainly with adult offenders:
Focus on victim and offender
Objectives: equal, neutral service to both parties, less outcome oriented
Mediation style: facilitating
Attempts to also include the community, mainly for juveniles (infra)

5. Strengths Wide application (at first sight)
As idea and type of intervention very acceptable for many (public prosecutors, public defensors, judges, educators and social workers, politicians, public opinion)
Also for victims very acceptable on the basis of their pro-social attitude
Mediation practice according to a clear and well established methodology (principles of neutrality, voluntariness and confidentiality; legal and parental assistance for juveniles; special protection and support needs of juveniles)
Legal basis in many countries (e.g. in nearly all European countries), supported by international regulations (UN, Council of Europe, EU) and regional networks (e.g. European Forum for Restorative Justice, Asian Pacific Forum for Restorative Justice)
Positive effects on juvenile offender: satisfaction, recognition, respect, re- offending (often in combination with other measures)

6. Weaknesses
Limited impact in a quantitative way (in relation to what is legally possible) (except in a few countries)
Negative (restrictive) effects of institutionalisation (e.g. mediation mixed up with other types of intervention)
Victims not always included:
Access to programmes mostly through offender-related criteria (type and seriousness of offence, age and history of offender)
Many victims excluded or discriminated (e.g. victims whose offender is adult)
Victims might feel ‘used’ (instrumentalisation of mediation)
Mediation for juvenile offender = a ‘favour’, a measure, a service, or a right?
To which extent are families really involved and ‘empowered’?
To which extent and how can the ‘community’ be involved and responsibilised?

7. The need to change the underlying paradigm: restorative justice and its models

8. Challenges Which approach to be adopted?
To rehabilitate the offender?
To support the victim?
To reduce crime?
To reduce the court’s caseload?
To save costs?
Replicating the positions and concepts of (criminal or juvenile) justice processes?
Should we be more inclusive and participatory: towards the offenders, the victims, their families, their communities?
Therefore: let’s clarify what we want

9. Thinking substantially: towards a new conceptual model
‘Changing Lenses’ (H. Zehr, 1990):
How we look at crime
How we react to crime
Balancing the needs of victims, offenders and society
Restorative justice = A general approach, guided by a set of values and principles

10. ‘Restorative justice is a problem-solving approach to crime which involves the parties themselves, and the community generally, in an active relationship with statutory agencies. It is not a particular practice, but a set of principles which may orientate the general practice of any agency or group in relation to crime.’
(Marshall, 1999)

11. (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999)
‘Restorative justice is every action that is primarily oriented toward doing justice by repairing the harm that has been caused by a crime’
(Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999)

12. UN Definitions:
Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Justice Programmes in criminal matters
(Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, April – see also UN Handbook):
- RJ programme
- Restorative process
- Restorative outcome

13. Models in practice Restorative justice - prototypes:
Victim-offender mediation (VOM) (penal mediation)
Conferencing
Peacemaking circles/Sentencing circles
Restorative practices:
In criminal justice
In other settings
Strict sense: methods
With many variations on the theme
Broad sense:
Complementary practices (probation, victim support, prevention programmes, ...)
Re-orienting:
The criminal justice system (from police to prison)
Community responses (involving local communities, volunteers and other participatory approaches)

14. Theoretical foundations
Putting delinquent behaviour in its natural context
Communitarianism – Theory of Reintegrative Shaming (J. Braithwaite)
Strenghts based approach – The Good Lives Model (T. Ward, S. Maruna)
Understanding victims
The experience of wrongfulness – victimisation as a social process
Victim’s needs of justice (K.Daly)
Participation
Voice
Validation
Vindication
Offender accountability

15. Empirical findings At the individual level At the organisational level
Effects on re-offending:
Conferencing or mediation?
Direct meeting with victim
More serious crimes
Involvement of the victim
At the organisational level
The community is not always the community

16. How to work towards a culture of peace?

17. Reaching ‘the community’
‘Community of care’ (direct stakeholders)
‘Local community’ (indirect stakeholders)
‘Wider community’ (the public)
A multiplicity of groups and networks (same employer, member of Facebook group, …)
A ‘perception of connectedness’, an attitude of solidarity

18. Community justice Restorative justice
Handling particular criminal ‘cases’: ‘what happens to victim and offender?’
Strategy at individual level: participation, procedural justice
‘Works’ when key actors experience satisfaction (process and outcome)
Restoring communities
Collective experience: ‘what happens to the community?’
Broader strategies, including crime prevention: to improve community level where this has been damaged by crime
‘Works’ when quality of live in a given place improves
Transforming communities
(A. Crawford)

19. Working with the community in practice
How to address and redress social harm (besides personal and relational harm)?
How to empower the community (besides victim, offender and their communities of care)?
How to build societal support for mediation and other restorative justice programmes?
The role of community volunteers and community organisations – intermediate structures
The role of schools and other educational settings
Public awareness and information, and the role of the media

20. Towards a ‘Restorative City’?
Objectives:
To build expertise on non-violent dealing with conflict into society
Developing knowledge, attitudes and skills amongst citizens
Strategy:
Identifying ‘interactive settings’ in various societal contexts (e.g. neighbourhoods, schools, public administrations, enterprises, sport clubs, civil society organisations)
Setting-up pilot projects in some of these organisations (action-research: evaluating the process of development and the effects)
Looking at opportunities for generalisation
Ongoing:
Making mediation programmes (civil and criminal context) available and accessible
Public campaigns and support from local authorities

21. Conclusion
Mediation – if it wants to be effective - is much more than applying a measure at the individual level or solving a conflict at the interpersonal level
Mediation is also about a culture: how to look at conflict and crime in personal, family, relational, social and work environments
Penal juvenile mediation programmes should reach out much more to their communities
Penal juvenile mediation actors should think about their own professional and organisational cultures