A First Survey on Victim-Offender Mediation in Italy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A First Survey on Victim-Offender Mediation in Italy Anna Mestitz [1] IRSIG-CNR Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy From a session presented at "Dreaming of a New Reality," the Third International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, August 8-10, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota Introduction Victim-offender mediation (VOM) was introduced in Italy in the mid 90s. The present study was aimed at providing a first overview of the characteristics and functioning of the VOM services throughout the country. Specifically, the investigation focused on the organization of VOM services, and resources available, as well as on the characteristics of the profession of the mediator (i.e., training, motivations, perceptions). It should be noted that VOM practice in Italy is currently limited to the juvenile criminal justice system. Before presenting the results of the survey on VOM services, I shall outline briefly the implementation of VOM and a description of the legal framework within which VOM can be adopted. The introduction of Restorative Justice (RJ) practices even before the birth of formal VOM services in 1995 demonstrates the attention paid to alternative procedures inspired by RJ in the Italian juvenile justice context. Such attention ultimately led to the establishment of VOM groups promoted by juvenile prosecutors and judges, and supported by social workers and/or lay judges, some of whom were directly involved in mediation. It was in fact a small group of juvenile magistrates of Turin (an important North-Western city) which was the promoter of VOM in Italy. I must clarify that in Italy, like in France, the term “magistrates” includes both judges and public prosecutors, who share the same bureaucratic recruitment, training and career. Four articles published in the period 1992-1994 opened a new scenario on VOM in juvenile criminal justice and were crucial to the implementation of VOM (Bouchard, 1992, 1993, 1994; Juvenile magistrates of Turin, 1994). The latter two articles, published in the same issue of the official journal of the juvenile and family magistrates association (Minori giustizia) had a remarkable impact. The one by Bouchard (1994) pointed out that “restorative practices as mediation” had quickly developed in Eastern European countries, lamenting that Italy had remained substantially resistant and unavailable for the experimentation. The other one by Bouchard’s colleagues, magistrates of the juvenile court and prosecution office of Turin, was quite unusual because, exceptionally, the authors’ names were replaced by the following premise: “We present a document prepared by the magistrates of the juvenile court and prosecution office of Turin. It proposes a new path for the juvenile criminal process through the so-called victim-offender mediation and the reparation of damage caused by the crime” (Juvenile magistrates of Turin, 1994). Taking into account the journal where this article was published, the absence of the authors’ names and the fact that the authors were probably the most representative and authoritative group in the juvenile justice arena, the article may be considered as the manifesto for the application of RJ and VOM in Italy. Given these premises, it comes as no surprise that the first Italian VOM service was founded in Turin in the following year, 1995, and located in the juvenile prosecution office. Subsequently, VOM was gradually and spontaneously adopted elsewhere: in 1996 VOM services were created in Trento, Catanzaro, Bari and Rome, in 1998 in Milan, in 1999 in Sassari, in 2000 in Cagliari and Foggia. Our survey is concerned with the above mentioned 9 VOM services. Although the code of juvenile criminal procedure implemented in 1989 does not include a specific provision for VOM, nor is the term mediation ever mentioned, the Department for juvenile justice of the Ministry of Justice has relied on its web site to encourage the experimental application of VOM [2]. A few norms are currently used to apply VOM and RJ practices, but the norm providing for probation (art. 28 DPR 448/88) is the most commonly applied. The institute of probation differs substantially from similar institutes in other countries because instead of being a real sentence, it results in the suspension of the trial until a later time at which a sentence will be given. During the time of suspension, the juvenile may participate in programs or projects aimed at rehabilitating him or her and/or guaranteeing a positive outcome of the sentence. The judge (frequently the judge of the preliminary hearing) may in fact refer the case to the social service and/or to the VOM service with the aims of “conciliation”, “reparation” or “mediation”. At the time of the sentence, if the outcome of the mediation is positive, the judge may proceed by dismissing the case or giving judicial pardon. It may be added that until 1993, VOM lacked structure and organization. The social workers were the only professionals conducting mediation, but they were not prepared for the job (Baldry, 1998). Moreover, according to Baldry (1998), little attention was given to the victims’ interests and needs, and in most cases the focus was on young offenders. A sizeable minority of these cases (40.5%) did involve direct victim- offender mediation but for the majority of the cases (59.5%), mediation did not involve a direct meeting with the parties, possibly because social workers acting as mediators preferred to ask the offender to write a letter of apology to the victim. Thus RJ practices rise spontaneously in Italy in the 90s even before the formal establishment of VOM services. This is confirmed also by the results of a longitudinal analysis on the application of probation in the period 1991-96 that we carried out in Bari, an important South-Eastern city on the sea side (Mestitz, Colamussi, 2000). This research significantly showed that the institute of probation was applied mainly with reference to the RJ model. In fact, RJ strategies were part of the probation projects for the large majority (81.1%) of the sample (190 probation cases). Mainly restorative prescriptions entailed the reparation of the damages caused by the crime (either materially or symbolically) and/or the reconciliation with the victim. In Table 1 restorative practices concerned with 154 cases have been classified in 4 sub-categories. It can be observed that direct mediation through victim-offender meetings was very rarely used, only in 9.1% cases. Instead, in most cases the mediation was formal and indirect. The research stressed that the two main restorative practices adopted were: symbolic financial compensation to charity and welfare institutions, churches included (51.3% ), and writing formal letters of apology to the victim (35.7%). These results stimulated the survey here presented. Table 1 - Categories of 154 restorative practices adopted in a sample of 190 probation projects as documented by Court social services in Bari in the period 1991-1996. Restorative practices N % - symbolic payments to charity and welfare 79 51.3 institutions (churches included) - letter of apology to the victim 55 35.7 - meeting of reconciliation with the victim 14 9.1 - financial compensation to the victim 6 3.9 Total 154 100 Source: Mestitz and Colamussi (2000: 253). Survey of VOM services in Italy As previous researches on Italian VOM services were lacking [3], the main scope of the present study is exploratory. The survey was carried out in the period 2001-02 at the Research Institute on Judicial Systems of the National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR). Method and subjects Two different questionnaires, one addressed to mediators and one to the mediation service coordinators/directors, were administered in 9 VOM services. The questionnaires were returned by almost the entire universe: 9 coordinators of all existing VOM services (listed in Table 2) and by 50 mediators. Only 6 mediators did not return the questionnaires. The questionnaires collected information on the following aspects: organization and funding of VOM services, mediators’ main characteristics, impact of VOM, mediation features, mediators’ perceptions, and work satisfaction. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively in order to permit an initial evaluation of the work organization and characteristics of the mediators. However the research is currently underway and it will be completed in the coming months by a series of interviews with mediators. Table 2 - VOM services in Italy by date of foundation. Sites of VOM services Date of foundation Turin (Piedmont region, North- Jan.1995 (founded again in West) May 2000) Trento (autonomous province, Feb. 1996 (founded again in North-East) Feb. 1999) Catanzaro (Calabria region, July 1996 (working from Oct. South-West) 1997) Bari (Puglia region, South-East) November 1996 Rome (Lazio region, Central End of 1996, closed in 1999 Italy) Milan (Lombardy region, North) May 1998 Sassari (Sardinia island) June 1999 Cagliari (Sardinia island) April 2000 Foggia (Puglia region, South- May 2000 East) The survey considered 9 services, but the one in Rome founded at the end of 1996 was closed in 1999. Thus at present 8 VOM services for juvenile offenders are operative: three are located in the North (Turin, Milan, Trento), three in the South (Foggia and Bari in the region Puglia; Catanzaro in the region Calabria), and two on the island of Sardinia (Cagliari, Sassari Organization and funding of VOM services VOM services generally stem from the collaboration of judicial authorities, local institutions and social services. Thus three common elements can be traced in the organizational models and the funding of the VOM services: a) they are public services, as local and/or State governments provide personnel and financing; b) magistrates and lay judges played an active role in their foundation; c) court social workers’ collaboration and agreement was an essential condition for VOM services functioning. a) The sources of funding may be the State government (Ministry of Justice) and/or the local governments such as municipality (city administration), province, region.