Victim‐offender mediation: Three decades of practice and research

Crime seriousness and participation in restorative justice: The role of time elapsed since the offense.

“…This finding echoes the meta-analytic observations of Running head: CRIME SERIOUSNESS AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 34 Umbreit et al (2004), who noted that crime seriousness "has yet to demonstrate any consistent pattern as a predictor of participation rates" (p. 286). The way in which VOM is organized may play a critical role here: the program is supplemental to the court process and is thus not a formal part of the criminal prosecution of offenders.…”

“…Previous research into this Dutch VOM program suggests that its outcomes are in line with the international literature on VOM and conferencing (e.g., Sherman & Strang, 2007;Umbreit et al, 2004). That is, victims and offenders in this program reported similarly high levels of satisfaction with the mediation process and outcomes (Laxminarayan, Lens & Pemberton, 2015;Zebel, 2012).…”

“…For victims who experience relatively low levels of harm, these psychological benefits are likely to be salient relatively shortly after the offense, but this may decrease over time when they come to consider the offense too distant in time and/or too trivial (Richards, 2009;Umbreit et al, 2004). However, if the offense is too serious, victims' concerns about personal safety and fear of revictimization may outweigh these Running head: CRIME SERIOUSNESS AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 7 perceived benefits and victims will then be unlikely to participate shortly after the offense (see also Gehm, 1998;Orth, 2003).…”

“…The present study focused on a VOM program in the Netherlands which bears many similarities with other VOM programs around the world, in terms of set-up and being primarily dialogue-driven (rather than settlement-driven; Umbreit et al, 2004).…”

“…Mediators follow what Umbreit et al (2004) label a humanistic model of mediation (p. 280): their primary role is to facilitate dialogue and aid both parties, using a nondirective style and without taking sides. They follow a standard procedure in establishing (initial) contact with both parties to examine the possibility and feasibility of VOM (irrespective of offense type and seriousness; van Burik et al, 2010).…”