that may induce a sense of revictimization, the victim is
typically contacted after the offender has already
agreed to take part in VOM.
During the actual VOM meeting, the victim and the
offender talk to each other about the crime, discuss the
effects of the crime on their lives, and describe their
feelings about it. At times, more than one mediation
meeting is necessary to complete the process. In some
practices, family and community members join the
victim and the offender in the meetings (i.e., family
group conferencing, conferencing).
As a result of the VOM process, the victim and the
offender may choose to create a mutually agreeable
plan to repair any material and psychological damages
that resulted from the crime. Research indicates that
VOM is largely successful, and an agreement between
the parties is reached more than 90% of the times. The
reparation plan may include direct compensation to
the victim, work for the victim, and community ser-
vice. Research suggests that when reparation plans are
generated within VOM, reparation is completed more
frequently than when reparation is court imposed.What Is the Relation Between
VOM and the Criminal Proceeding?
In the United States, there is great variability in the rela-
tion between VOM and the criminal proceeding. In
some cases, VOM is attempted as a diversion measure,
as when a juvenile case is diverted to mediation ser-
vices in the early stages of a criminal proceeding and
does not reenter the juvenile justice system, assuming
that the mediation agreement is completed. In other
cases, VOM is the condition for probation following an
admission of guilt accepted by the court. Finally, in
some cases, VOM is attempted in the postadjudication
phase. Such variability exists in other countries as well,
such as those in the European Union, except that VOM
is not a common practice in the postadjudication phase.
Furthermore, the practice of VOM in Europe is fre-
quently an inherent part of the criminal procedure (at
certain stages of the proceeding, the case may be
referred to a mediation service), so that if the mediation
process is successful, there will be a tangible impact on
the case sentence. The variability observed appears to
depend largely on the characteristics of legal and policy
tradition specific to each country rather than on consid-
erations pertaining specifically to the practice of VOM
with juvenile offenders.Who Participates in VOM
and Why?
Participation in VOM depends largely on the criteria for
case referral and, critically, on the parties’ willingness
to partake in the process. Various referral criteria have
been used, such as the age of the offender, whether the
offense is more or less severe, or whether it was com-
mitted by a first-time offender. Traditionally, VOM has
mostly involved juvenile offenders who had committed
crimes against property and minor assaults. However,
more recently, there has been a tendency to broaden the
scope of VOM and extend this practice to more serious
offenses and to adult offenders, although it should be
noted that the seriousness of the offense may deter vic-
tims’ participation.VViiccttiimmss’’ aanndd OOffffeennddeerrss’’ MMoottiivvaattiioonnss
Research indicates that approximately 60% to 70%
of victims who are offered the opportunity to partake
in VOM do so. When asked what motivates their deci-
sion to undergo the VOM process, victims express a
desire for restitution and a desire to see the offender
held accountable, learn about the reasons behind the
offender’s actions, share the pain caused by the crime,
help the offender change, and avoid court processing.
High percentages of participation are also observed
among juvenile offenders. With respect to motiva-
tions, there is some indication that juvenile offenders
choose to participate in order to take responsibility for
the criminal acts they have committed, apologize to
the victim, and move on with their lives.
To date, little is known about the motivations behind
the decision not to participate in VOM. Victims seem to
emphasize either the triviality of the offense or, at the
other end of the spectrum, the fear that the VOM meet-
ing may not be safe. As for offenders, there is initial
evidence that they may opt out of VOM because their
lawyers advise them against participating. Indeed, the
admission of responsibility for a crime, a necessary
condition for VOM, raises issues of legal safeguards for
juveniles.Victims’ and Offenders’
Perceptions of VOM
A number of studies have examined the consequences
of participating in the VOM process for victims and838 ———Victim-Offender Mediation With Juvenile OffendersV-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 838