SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (73891)9/4/2003 6:22:19 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 82486
 
In civil court, it is a requirement in many cases, though by no means all.

In criminal, I don't think so. Victims of rape, or robbery, or burglary, or arson, or murder, or assault, or domestic violence, should not be required to sit down and mediate with the alleged perpetrator. The victims are traumitized enough as it is.

There are probably a few exceptions in which mediation might be appropriate, but not in the vast majority of cases.

And there really is a multi phase process already. The police have in most cases (except DV in many states) the right not to arrest, but to try to work things out on the ground, as it were. They aren't stupid. There are many police encounters where an arrest could technically take place where the police don't make an arrest. Fights outside barrooms where nobody is hurt, for example, if they think it's over and done with and the two won't be right back at it when they leave.

Then after the police arrest, the prosecutor reviews the case and makes a decision whether to charge of dismiss. They also aren't stupid; they can see where one person is inappropriately trying to use the criminal system to gain points.

So a case already has to get through these two screens before it is charged.

And since the victim isn't allowed to have an attorney in court, whereas the defendant is, it's often appropriate for the prosecutor to be on the victim's side just to level the battlefield, as it were.



To: one_less who wrote (73891)9/4/2003 7:44:50 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
There is something inherently wrong with the notion of mediating violent crimes, though. Mediation is for civil cases. You can't abrogate a violent crime through mediation. The way "mediation" happens in practice is that police and prosecutors and victims have the option of not going forward with gray cases or charges are negotiated.