Victim-offender-mediation with juvenile offenders in finland

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, Finland witnessed the emergence of a reform ideology named "neo-classicism" in reference to the renaissance of some of the core values of the old classical school of criminal law theory. Specifically, the values embodied in this reform are summarized as follows: punishment is used for expressing, maintaining and strengthening a system of norms. Thus, punishment must be seen as just and legitimate. Neoclassicism emphasizes the value of a straightforward penal system in which each criminal act corresponds to a specific set of responses, and this set is not qualified by knowledge and understanding of the conditions (e.g., social background) leading individuals to offend. Thus, the judge passing sentences is not supposed to make assessments of the offender's or victim's need for treatment or rehabilitation1. Evidently, the penal system is supposed to be as simple as possible and contain only a few alternatives, because clarity and simplicity increase predictability and the role of legal safeguards. However, the classical criminal justice approach came under heavy criticism in the 1970s. This criticism was mostly directed to the neoclassical ideology of equal treatment that obscures factors such as the unequal social position of the offenders, and fails to take into account the convicts' underprivileged background as a factor affecting their social behaviour. In addition, the neoclassical ideology of punishment was considered to work in the interests of the societal power structure, while disregarding the needs of the poor (Viirre, 1977; Iivari, 1982). Moreover, in response to practical criminal policy making, many researchers, social workers and officials in the late 1970s began to inquire about the role of rehabilitation and reform work in Finnish criminal policy. This criticism concerning coercive treatment resulted in the request that criminal policies distinguished between repressive and punitive measures on the one hand, and supporting and reforming measures on the other. But this was not sufficient. In criticizing neoclassicism, attention was paid to the circumstances of crime and the social needs manifested by it. At that time, it was strongly argued that punishment was not the answer to crime. The prisons continued to be overcrowded in Finland, which on its own counted the same number of prisoners as did all the other Scandinavian countries together. There was solid evidence that aspects of rehabilitation were absent and that the real needs of convicted people were rejected in the criminal justice system. Finally, some critics among criminal-policy makers and members of the Lutheran Church of Finland began to promote ideals of abolitionism as well as the implementation of alternative measures, such as mediation between victim and offender. These proposals were influenced by international debate on alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system approach to criminal behaviour. Meanwhile, some models of mediation used in the USA and Canada were presented at an influential criminology seminar held in Norway in the late 1970s. Researchers and practitioners from Finland attended this seminar (Viirre, 1981). Earlier, in 1977, a Norwegian Professor of criminology, Nils Christie, had given a lecture on "Conflict as property". In short, Christie stated that the criminal justice system itself had "stolen the conflicts of people" and that these conflicts should be given back to people, i.e., to the parties involved. In Finland, discussion on alternatives for criminal policy combined these two ideas and suggested that giving conflicts back to the people involved could be very effective (Christie, 1977). These ideas paved the way for the first experiments with victim-offender mediation (VOM) in Finland. The first mediation project started in the City of Vantaa in 1983 and 1984 in the form of an action-research project and was initially financed by the Academy of Finland and the City of Vantaa. As of 2000, a countrywide inquiry indicated that there was no uniform model available in Finland for organizing mediation. The most common arrangement was to organize mediation as an inherent part of the duties of social welfare officials employed in youth affairs units (18.4%). Another usual arrangement was to rely on various types of contracts, purchasing mediation services from external entities (16.4%). Of the municipalities that responded to our inquiry, 34 (7.5%) had their own mediation office. A total of 14% of the municipalities indicated that they had organized mediation in some other way. These municipalities typically used a system in which a municipal official acted as a contact person for mediation, referring occasional mediation cases to mediators acting in the municipality on a voluntary basis. Of all municipalities, 35% indicated that they had not organized the mediation of crimes in any way. A total of 8.8% of all municipalities failed to respond to the inquiry. At that time, 72% of the total population had a chance to participate in mediation if need be. In 2002, the Advisory Committee of Mediation set up by the Government proposed that an act on organizing mediation should be adopted in Finland. This act should assign the general management, guidance and control of mediation activities to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Provincial State Offices would be responsible for ensuring the availability of mediation services within each province. Such offices would have the responsibility for providing mediation services in cooperation with municipalities. In order for mediation services to be provided, each municipality should sign an agreement referred to in Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Municipality Act (365/1995) with the respective Provincial State Office. In this agreement the municipality would commit to providing mediation services for its inhabitants. Municipalities may arrange the mediation activities on their own or together with other municipalities or they may purchase mediation services from other municipalities or a relevant organizations. The State will reimburse the municipalities for the service provision on grounds that were to be defined by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. At the time of writing, the Government of Finland has not yet approved an act concerning the organization of mediation services. © 2005 Springer.