Victim-Offender Mediation 191so optimistic about restorative justice programs. They suggest that offenders often
feel pressured into coming to an agreement during mediation and indicate such
programs often do not benefit the offender (J. G. Brown, 1 994; K. L. Joseph, 1996).Arguments against Victim—Offender Mediation
Although most research is supportive of victim-offender mediation programs, some
researchers note problems with the programs, resulting in debate about whether
such programs should be utilized at all. The primary argument against mediation
programs is whether true voluiitariness exists for the offenders involved in the
program (J. G. Brown, 1994; K. L. Joseph, 1996). Because many offenders are
referred to mediation programs from the court, they participate because they feel it
is required (K. L.Joseph, 1996). In addition, offenders may come to an agreement
that they cannot afford or cannot complete because they fear if they do not come
to an agreement in mediation they will be punished for noncompliance (}. G.
Brown, 1994). In response, researchers who support victim—offender mediation
programs suggest that giving the offender the opportunity to have a say in his or
her punishment will more likely result in a punishment with which he or she can
comply (Reske, 1995).
There are also arguments against restitution programs. J. G. Brown (1994) argues
that such programs are a disservice to both victims and offenders. Victims may
experience an injustice because reconciliation programs stress reconciliation before
the victims "have the vindication of a public finding that the offender is guilty"
(J. G. Brown, 1994, p. 3). However, this is not true for all programs; in Geiger's
case, the offender was not only found guilty, he served 12 years in prison. Victim--
offender mediation programs may pressure the victim into suppressing his or her
anger and sense of loss through the assumption that his or her feelings can be
expressed, to the offender in merely a period of hours. These programs underserve
the offender in several ways as well. First, the selection criteria are not related to
the goals of the program. Second, such programs eliminate procedural protections.
including the right to counsel. Third, programs attempt to gain advantages for the
victims by using the threat of a pending criminal trial.
Although Brown makes some important assertions against victim—offender me-
diation programs, a number of the problems she addresses could be alleviated by
changing programs, not eliminating them. For example, in the Geiger case, there
may have been some pressure for the offender to mediate because he was due for
parole. In other cases, there may be coercion because the process is prior to ad-
judication; however, if programs are postadjudication and the mediation does not
occur prior to a parole hearing, it is doubtful that the offender would feel pressured
to come to an agreement as a result of fearing punishment.
Other arguments against victim—offender mediation programs could also be al-
leviated by changing or restricting programs. Some researchers argue against the use
of victim-offender mediation programs for certain offenders such as sex offenders