What is the future of mediation – questions about mediation
In mediation, the parties involved in a criminal act come face to face with each other and search for a solution to the crime or dispute at hand, in cooperation with mediators. Mediators are not parties to the crime and have a duty of confidentiality, and they do not take a stand on who is right or wrong. In mediation, the parties share their experiences and feelings, participate in resolving the matter and in investigating the course of events and damages, as well as the harm done.
What are the reasons for the intention to discontinue mediation in cases involving domestic or intimate partner violence?
A significant proportion of the crimes mediated are related to violence. According to the Government Programme entry “As a rule, mediation in cases involving domestic or intimate partner violence will be discontinued”, the intention is to prohibit mediation in cases of domestic and intimate partner violence. The prohibition is understandable, particularly when looking at the matter from the perspective of a victim in a subordinated and vulnerable position, or from the perspective of the serious and problematic nature of gender-based violence against women.
However, due to the absolute nature of the prohibition, there is a risk that the position of the parties to domestic violence and, in particular, children, as well as the comprehensive referral of people to the services they need, will be undermined, which will cause further cross-generational problems. Defining a domestic or intimate partner relationship is also problematic.
The authorities and other actors, who work in practice with both parties involved in this type of violence, see more opportunities than threats in mediation. It remains to be seen what will be decided, and how absolute the decision will be, and what the consequences will be in practice. We already know that the workload of the police will not be reduced as regards crime prevention and the numerous ancillary obligations in pre-trial investigation.
Why wait for a crime to be mediated?
Mediation is a fine tool that enables people to be expertly referred to other necessary services – but why should we wait until a crime occurs that then requires mediation? Particularly in the case of young people, all kinds of things happen that ultimately lead to crimes, such as assaults and property crimes, and everything from malicious damage to robbery. In many cases, crimes committed by juveniles are preceded by inappropriate behaviour, which leads to confrontation, and when the dispute and bullying continues and becomes more serious, to acts that meet the characteristics of a crime. It should be possible to intervene in these associated phenomena at an early stage.
This requires that many different actors work together, for example within the framework of Anchor work. However, it must be understood that Anchor work cannot be based on police resources only, but requires the preparedness, capability and competence of other parties, as well as continuous commitment.
The significance of mediation in preventing recidivism should also be better identified and recognised. Those who have worked with crimes committed by young people know too well that the young person who commits a crime is often also a victim, requiring the support of a safe adult. The role of an adult includes not accepting everything, but understanding and supporting the young person to help them achieve life without crime.
What about preventative mediation?
The police has sought to promote preventative mediation, which has been brought up in the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare’s National Advisory Board for Mediation Matters and in the stakeholder cooperation of the police’s USEL network. Preventative mediation at the above-mentioned phenomenon-level stage before crimes occur could save the future of many young people, and teach even more juveniles to consider the consequences of their actions and show consideration to others, as well as to understand the insidious dangers involved in confrontation.
Instead of prohibiting mediation services, it should be possible to develop them in a preventative direction, especially in the case of young people, so that matters would already be addressed by means of mediation in situations that precede crimes, as described above. This should be taken seriously into account at the latest when mediation activities are transferred from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Justice – as planned. At the same time, the entire field of mediation and its relationship with the preliminary investigation process and the authorities involved in that process, should be updated.
Pekka Heikkinen
Chief Superintendent
National Police Board
Anchor work is multi-professional cooperation that supports the well-being of children and young people and prevents crime. The activities involved also aim to prevent violent radicalisation and extremism. The work is carried out in teams consisting of experts from the police, social welfare services, health and youth services. More extensive networks of actors are needed for this work.
The USEL network is a national network of commanding officer level police officers that discusses, with stakeholders, issues related to the victim’s position, mediation, supervision of interests and restraining orders.
