CHA9TBHT10O
2.3 THE NEED FOR A VICTIM-OFFENDER RECONCILIATION PROGRAM THROUGH MEDIATION
2.3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL AND JUDICIAL ADVANTAGES FOR THE NEED FOR RECONCILIATION THROUGH MEDIATION FOR HEALING
Mark Umbreit (1989:100) makes clear concise statements on the need for reconciliation via mediation. He says, "V.O.R.P (Victim Offender Reconciliation Program) offers the courts an alternative conflict resolution process involving a restorative rather than a punitive sanction. It humanizes the justice process to strengthen offender accountability, to provide assistance to victims and to divert some convicted offenders..."
He comments:
Despite many important sub-goals (eg. Offender rehabilitation and victim restitution being an alternative to incarceration), the primary goal of
reconciliation remains. Attitudes, feelings and needs of both victim and offender must be taken seriously. Restitution is important but should not be the only purpose of the victim-offender meeting (Zehr, 1983 ).
(Umbreit 1989:100) Another major argument for victim offender mediation is that in the usual legal procedure, the conflict and its resolution is taken away from the victim and put into the hands of the state. The victim then loses power, over her self-determination in some sense. However the purpose is to take away responsibility for retribution from the victim. This in turn also helps to prevent any further victimization of the victim. The possibility of the victim later feeling guilt for wanting retribution is also prevented. In relation to this Umbreit (1989:100) says, "Crime should be viewed as relational, emphasis is on the conflict among people rather than primarily an offence against the state."
Note that while Umbreit is connecting the advantages, that I have quoted and discussed above, of V.O.R.P in non-violent crimes, he does attempt to take these concepts and apply them, correctly I think, to violent crimes. In fact he says, "While the early development of the victim- offender reconciliation concept and it's replication in a growing number of communities has continued to focus upon non-violent property crimes, there is certainly nothing inherent in the model to suggest it must be limited to property offences" (1989:100).
Umbreit (1989:102) goes on to say that "a number of victims of violent crime have pointed out themselves, that mediation can have a significant impact in facilitating the healing process and moving beyond one's sense of vulnerability". He cites a number of case-studies of victims of violent crime, who testify to how meaningful they felt mediation to be.' One of these case- studies is about the sexual assault of a five year old but the mediation does not take place between the five year old victim and her assailant. Rather it takes place between the victim's mother, who needed emotional healing and the perpetrator (:104).
1 See Umbreit (1989:104-108) for case studies of how mediation in face to face victim- offender meetings proved helpful.
According to Umbreit (1989:101), another reason for reconciliation through mediation, is that it provides a response to crime which addresses "the needs of both victim and offenders, allowing for the expression of feelings and opportunities for healing of emotional wounds". The idea here is that the victim and offender both have an opportunity to "tell their story". By revisiting the "break in the narrative of their lives", the victim starts to smooth out the "break" and the trauma starts to integrate itself into the psyche gradually. In echoing this idea, Villa-Vicencio (in Haye 1989:28) says that Ellen Kuzwayo once said, "We need more stories, never mind how painful the exercise might be. This is how we learn to love one another, to see things through someone else's eyes." Lewis Hermann (1992:173) also agrees because she says that the work of reconstructing the memory in recovery actually occurs when the "survivor tells [the story]
completely, in depth and in detail."
Perhaps more clinical evidence that victim-offender mediation for reconciliation can help heal offenders, is found in an article written by Dunkel and Rossner (1989) entitled, "Victim-related therapy for sexual offenders in Hameln prison." l In this program offenders were given an opportunity to relate to the woman as "sex-objects", a major aspect here was that "victims"
confronted the offender. This happened either "through tape recordings, lay-help... or in exceptional cases offenders met their actual victims"(Dunkel and Rossner 1989:167). The claim was made that in a period of three and a half years "so far", "there had been no recidivism among participants in the program"(:167)
Another advantage of V.O.M. P.'s is that they offer victims and offenders other information, like contact numbers of other social agencies etc. that could help them further.
Cheston (1993:476) lends support for reconciliation in reference to adult survivors from childhood sexual abuse. She refers to six stages of healing, the sixth of which she refers to as
"Resolution and Reconciliation". Here the victim decides if she will confront the abuser. She says this stage is "akin to acceptance and rapprochement". In this stage the survivor must also learn to reconcile to herself and love herself (:476-477).
She also mentions positive as well as negative results of confrontation which takes place in this stage. She says, "The positive outcomes of disclosing or confronting may include confirmation
1 See Dunkel and Rossner (1989:164-169) for numerous examples of V.O.M.P's in the then West Germany and Switzerland.
that the abuse did occur from another sibling, stopping a perpetrator from hurting another child, support from others..., an apology from the perpetrator and gaining strength for the victim because she has finally said 'Stop it.' " (Cheston 1993:476). She says, "The negative outcomes of confrontation may be revenge, loss of family support, being called crazy or a liar and
denial"(:479).
Some proponents may think that another advantage or need for reconciliation through mediation is that if it is successful then it could help to ease the overcrowding of prisons.
However such an argument assumes that the V.O.M.P bypasses the courts. The assumption is that if the offender shows that he has been involved in a V.O.M.P, the sentence will be lessened or negated. This brings us to the important question of when does mediation take place with regard to the normal legal process and at what level should it interact with it ? I prefer V.O.M.P to work alongside the normal legal process so as to complement it.
My field research strengthens the above theoretical arguments for mediation in reconciliation even further. In my survey Survivors A and D as well as Offender B saw a need for a mediator in their reconciliation attempts. In fact Survivor A made an unsuccessful attempt at
reconciliation on her own (a59-70). She says that she would have preferred it if there was someone "like a psychologist present there that day" (a69). She says that she couldn't get the courage to tell "him I forgive him"(a64 - a65). She then left feeling "embarrassed" (a68).
Offender B found the possibility of a mediator "quite appealing" (bl 13). He commented that the mediator whom he saw as the magistrate had to be "impartial" (bl 13-114). Survivor D was ambivalent on the need for a mediator. She felt it would be necessary to have the mediator for counseling before victim and offender met "face to face" (dl38-139). However she felt that if they could handle themselves in a "dignified way" then "...It won't be necessary for someone else to be present, "(d 13 9-140). Survivor C also felt it was necessary to have a mediator for psychological preparation of victim and offender as well as to "control the situation" (cl22- cl23). I think that there is a strong indication, in my sample, for the desire for mediation by the victims and offenders for their reconciliation attempts.
Other valid concerns for the disadvantages of the V.O.M.P process also exists. Firstly there is the complexity of preparing the victims and offenders for reconciliation. How does one sift out a psychopathic serial rapist, who has no will to change but merely wants to take part in the process for some pathogenic psychological pleasure ? If the preparation is not done carefully
this could be counterproductive and cause more injury to the victim.
All of this points to the next hurdle. It is obvious that highly trained experts need to be involved in mediation for reconciliation, in serious crime. I am not convinced that we generally have the human-power or the finances in South Africa to hire these people. In my opinion there would be financial and logistical shortcomings with V.O.M.P's.
However in spite of the dangers and concerns, I believe that the advantages and the potential of V.O.M for healing, far outweigh the difficulties of such a program. We should rather aim to increase our knowledge of the dynamics of V.O.M. I could have cited evidence from other V.O.M's which show positive results emerging for V.O.M, but I will not write along this line further. I believe for the purpose of this thesis, I have put forward some strong arguments for investigating the effectiveness of reconciliation via mediation for healing.
I will touch on the psychological benefits of V.O.M in the next chapter, when I look at a psychological model of victims and offenders in serious crime- notably rape.