|
Similarities and Differences Between Family Group Conferencing
and Victim-Offender Mediation
FGC is strengthened by its similarities with and differences
from VOM. FGC seems to be a natural expansion of the dominant model of
VOM currently used by most of the more than 300 programs in North America
and an even larger number of programs in Europe. Like VOM, FGC provides
victims an opportunity to express the full impact of the crime upon their
lives, to receive answers to any lingering questions about the incident,
and to participate in holding the offender accountable for his or her
actions. Offenders can tell their story of why the crime occurred and
how it has affected their lives. They are given an opportunity to make
things right with the victimto the degree possiblethrough
some form of compensation. FGC primarily works with juvenile offenders
who have committed property crimes, but it has also been used with violent
juvenile offenders and adult offenders. This is consistent with the experience
of VOM in North America over the past 20 years.
Unlike VOM, FGC uses public officials (police officers,
probation officers, school officials) rather than trained volunteers as
facilitators. Although their roles include mediation, they are more broadly
defined, combining mediation with other methods of interaction and allowing
for more directed facilitation. The FGC process also casts a much wider
circle of participants than VOM. This approach has some potential advantages
over current VOM practice:
- FGC contributes to the empowerment and healing of
the community as a whole because it involves more community members
in the meeting called to discuss the offense, its effects, and how to
remedy the harm. By involving a broader range of people affected by
the crime, far more citizens become direct stakeholders in the criminal
and juvenile justice processes.
- A wider circle of people is recognized as being victimized
by the offense, and FGC explores the effects on these people: the primary
victim, people connected to the victim, the offender’s family members,
and others connected to the offender. The full impact of victimization
is more likely to be addressed in FGC because both primary and secondary
victims are invited to participate.
- Citizen volunteers are more likely to offer followup
support for both the victim and the offender because a wider range of
participants is potentially involved in assisting with the reintegration
of the offender into the community and the empowerment of the victim.
- The important role of the family in a juvenile offender’s
life is acknowledged and emphasized. Family dynamics play a major role
in juvenile delinquency, and far too few programs effectively address
these issues. FGC offers a restorative justice intervention with great
potential for strengthening accountability that can actively involve
both the offender’s family and the victim’s family.
Family Group Conferencing:
Comparison of New Zealand and Australia (Wagga Wagga)
Models |
|
New Zealand
Family Group Conferencing |
Australia (Wagga Wagga)
Family Group Conferencing |
Convened by: |
New Zealand Children &
Young Persons ServicesYouth Justice Coordinator.
|
Law enforcement officers,
school personnel. |
Participants: |
Youth Justice Coordinator,
offender, offender’s counsel, offender’s family
and support system, victim, victim’s
family and support system, social services,
police. |
FGC Coordinator, offender,
offender’s family and support system, victim,
victim’s family and support system,
investigating officer. |
Purpose: |
Clarify facts of incident,
express a plea (“Yes, I did it.” or “No, I
did not.”), reveal effects of incident on
all present, determine measures to make
amends, make decisions relating to other penalties. |
Reveal effects of incident
on all present, express emotional impact, determine
measures to make amends. |
Selection of community
members: |
Youth Justice Coordinator
and family of offender identify key people
to be involved; victim identifies his or her
support system. |
Coordinator identifies key
people to be involved; victim identifies his
or her support system. |
Decisionmaking: |
Consensus. |
Consensus. |
Victim role: |
Chooses participants for
support, expresses feelings about the crime,
describes impact on self, approves
plan to make amends that is submitted by
offender’s family. |
Chooses participants for
support, expresses feelings about the crime,
describes impact on self, provides input
to plan to make amends. |
Time in operation: |
Legislatively mandated in
1989. |
Since 1991. |
Targeted offenders: |
All juvenile offenders except
murder and manslaughter offenders. |
Juvenile offenders with
property offenses and assaults. |
Size of group
in conference: |
Typically 12–15; can be
40–50. |
Typically 12–15; can be
40–50. |
Preparation of
participants: |
Face-to-face visit with
offender and family before meeting, phone contact
to explain process to victim and other
participants, personal visit to victim if
needed. |
Phone contacts (as the norm)
with all participants to explain the process.
Occasional personal visits, if determined
to be necessary. |
Gatekeeper/access
to program: |
Statutes that provide a
family group conference as a right for victims
of all juvenile offenses other than
murder and manslaughter and require
offender participation. |
Discretionary judgment of
law enforcement or school officials. |
Conceptual framework:
|
Clearly based on restorative
justice principles with explicit reference
to the long experience of victim-offender
reconciliation and mediation programs. |
Clearly grounded in the
theory of reintegrative shaming by John Braithwaite,
as well as Silvan Tomkins’ affect theory.
Not explicitly grounded in restorative jus-
tice principles and not explicitly drawing
upon the experience of victim-offender reconciliation
and mediation programs. |
|
Family Group Conferencing:
Implications for Crime Victims |
April 2000 |
|