Abstract
<p>The European Union is committed to protect and establish minimum standards with regard to victims of crime. Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The Directive builds upon the key principle of the ‘role of the victim in the relevant criminal justice system’, so that any victim can rely on the same basic level of rights, regardless of their nationality and country in the EU in which the crime took place. The core objective of this Directive is to assume an individual approach to victims’ needs and to offer protection for victims of certain crimes, in particular, due to the risk of secondary victimisation. In this text, I am going to concentrate on the problem of enforcement of settlements reached in the presence of a mediator and to show samples of the results from qualitative and quantitative studies conducted in Łódź. The research aim is to show that the idea of restorative justice, in the light of the victim’s right to remedy of damage, when the settlement reached in the presence of a mediator is not performed, is fiction because it is only the perpetrator who benefits from the beneficial procedural effects of the settlement while the victim may be subject to secondary victimisation. I’d like to show a few important facts that should be taken into consideration when referring a case to mediation and when conducting a restorative justice process and current practice it in Poland.</p>
Highlights
The European Union is committed to protect and establish minimum standards with regard to victims of crime
The Directive builds upon the key principle of the ‘role of the victim in the relevant criminal justice system’, so that any victim can rely on the same basic level of rights, regardless of their nationality and country in the EU in which the crime took place
The research aim is to show that the idea of restorative justice, in the light of the victim’s right to remedy of damage, when the settlement reached in the presence of a mediator is not performed, is fiction because it is only the perpetrator who benefits from the beneficial procedural effects of the settlement while the victim may be subject to secondary victimisation
Summary
With regard to the Polish law, many authors believe that “mediation in criminal cases prevents secondary victimisation and its objective involves the reaching. This is especially true of mediation settlements in domestic violence cases, where the victim frequently wants the perpetrator to change his conduct and the offender makes such a promise This type of provisions of the mediation settlement cannot be enforced during bailiff execution and I, refer to them as ‘wishful’ settlements. A question arises at this point about the efficacy of the mediation process Was this the conclusion of a mediation settlement or the conclusion of criminal proceedings via its discontinuation or conditional suspension of the sanction for the perpetrator, or the redress of victim’s wrong? Not always, despite the bailiff’s proceedings, will the victim’s wrong be redressed due to the sequence of satisfaction of claims as set forth in Article 1025 of the Code of Civil Procedure and due to the nature of the provisions of the mediation settlement, which are not enforceable by bailiffs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
