Confidentiality in the Criminal Mediation Process
Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor of Allameh Tabataba’i University
2 Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law & Criminology
Abstract
Confidentiality is an important component of criminal mediation. Without observing the principle of confidentiality of the mediation process, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue between the victim and the offender. If the mediation environment does not guarantee the principle of confidentiality, it may be up to the perpetrator and victim to not participate in the process, Therefore, ensuring the participation of the victim and the offender is one of the main reasons for the nature of the confidentiality of this process. The principle of confidentiality of the mediation process is recognized in international documents and treaties and in the laws of different countries. Most criminal mediation regulations have stated that this is a confidential process, but in some cases the information and conversations and documents presented may not be generalized or disclosed, or in some cases, the mediator has a duty to disclose it or maybe There is a conflict between the rules of confidentiality in the mediation process and other criminal and legal rules. Therefore, mediators should warn participants in mediation hearings that, other than the necessary information in the case, any acceptance of past crimes, such as confessions for offenses or threats of future offenses, may not be considered confidential and the court will use these evidences and grounds for subsequent proceedings.
Highlights
-
Keywords
.1 خالقی، علی، 1818 ، نکته ها در قانون آیین دادرسدی کیفدری، چدا اول، تهدران، موسسده مطالعدات و پدژوهی هدای حقوقی شهر دانی
.2 رایجیان اصلی، مهرداد، 1810 ، بزه دیده شناسی حمایتی، تهران، نشر دادگستر
3 درویشی هویدا، 1833 ، یوسف، شیوه های جایگزین حل وفصل اختلا ، تهران، نشر میزان
4 عباسی، مصطفی، 1832 ، افق های نوین عدالت ترمیمی میانجیگری کیفری، چا اول، تهران، انتشارات دانشور
.5 غلاملو، جمشید، 1816 ، رویکرد ترمیمی به تعقیب جرایم علیه شخصیت معنوی، دانی نامه عدالت ترمیمی: مجموعده مقاله های همایی بین المللی عدالت ترمیمی و پیشگیری از جرم، تهران، میزان، چا نخست، صص 608 تا 613
.6 غلامی، حسین، 1831 ، عدالت ترمیمی، چا اول، تهران، انتشارات سمت
7. نجفی توانا، علی، فدایی، حسن، 1818 ، الزام افراد عادی به گزارش جرم در حقدوف ایدران و فرانسده، فصدلنامه حقدوف اسلامی، شماره چهل و دوم، صص 161 تا 112
8. Kirtley, Alan, 1998, Uniform Mediation Privilege Should Draw from Both Absolute and Qualified Approaches, 5 DiSP. Resol mag.
9. .Hirsch, A.von, 2003,Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice:competing or Reconcilable paradigms,oxford,
Oxford University Press 10. 10 Tomkins ,Alan J. J.D, Mark A. Small J.D, 2002, International Perspectives on Restorative and Community Justice, Behavioral sciences and the law, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 307-436
10- Shannon ,Brian D.,2000, Confidentiality of Texas Mediations: Ruminations on Some Thorny Problems,32 tex techl .rev1
11. etrucci,C.J. 2002, ‘Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting: Evidence forIncluding Apology as an Additional Component in the Legal System’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law
13. Crowther, Chris,2007, An Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice,New York,Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Caroline T. Trost, 1998, Chilling Child Abuse Reporting: Rethinking the CAPTA Amendments,
15. Ness, D. van, , 2003, ‘Proposed Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice:Recognizing the Aims and Limits of Restorative Justice’, in: A. von Hirsch, Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice:Competing or ReconcilableParadigms, Oxford: Hart
16. Miers D, Willemsens J.,2004 (eds.), Mapping Restorative Justice, Leuven:European Forumfor Victim Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice
17. Duff.A,2003,Restoration and retribution,in A.von Hirsch (eds) Restorative justice and criminal justice Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms Oxford, Hart Publishing, 202 دوره 4، شماره 2، پاییز و زمستان 6931
18. Handbook on Justice for Victims,1999,United nations office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Center for International Crime Prevention, New York
19. Bellard,Jan, 2000,The Community Mediator, Victim-Offender Mediation , http://www.voma.org/docs/ bellard.pdf (last visited on Mar. 23, 2003)
20. Braithwaite. J.,2003 ‘Principles of Restorative Justice’, in: A. von Hirsch et al(eds.), Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable ParadigmsOxford, Oxford University Press
21. Lauwaert ,K, 2008, Herstelrecht en procedurele waarborgen, Apeldoorn/Antwerp,Maklu
22. Kirtley, 1995, The Mediation Privilege's Transition from Theory to Implementation: Designing a Mediation Privilege Standard to Protect Mediation Participants, the Process and the Public Interest, J. Disp. RESOL.
23. Gibson, Kevin, 1992, Confidentiality in Mediation: A Moral Reassessment, J. DisP. RESOL.
24. Ellen Reimund ,Mary,2004,Confidentiality in Victim Offender Mediation: AFalse Promise,J.Disp.Resol.
25. Umbreit, Mark S.,2003 Legislative Statutes on Victim Offender Mediation: A National Review, VOMA Connections,available at http://voma.org/docs/connectl5.pdf (last visited Aug. 8, 2004).
26. Umbreit, Mark S.,1994, Victim meets Offender: the impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation, Monsery,NY:CriminaljusticePress
27. Price, Marty, 2001, Personalizing Crime: Mediation Produces Restorative Justice for Victims and Offenders http: //vorp.com/articles (last visited Mar. 3, 2002).
28. Volpe, Maria R. 2000, Promises and Challenges: ADR in the Criminal Justice System, 7 DisP. RESOL. MAG
29. Thompson,Peter N, 1997, Confidentiality, Competency and Confusion: The Uncertain Promise of the Mediation Privilege inMinnesota,18 hamline j.pub.l
30. Rathna N. Koman, 2016,Balancing the Force in Criminal Mediation, Beijing Law Review, Scientific Research PublishingInc,
31. Van Schijndel R.A.M, 2009, Confidentiality and victim-offender mediation, Portland, Maklu Uitgevers
32. Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters,ECOSOC Res/2000/14
33. Recommendation R (99)19 concerning Mediation in Penal Matters Adopted by the Committee of Ministers, 15 September1999
34. Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendationconcerning mediation in penal matters, European Commissionforthe Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Strasbourg, 7 December 2007
35. http:// www.abanet.org
)