Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter X. The possibilities of excluding evidence and the conditions for indictment at the prosecution (intermediate) stage
›
10.3. General characteristics of the mediation process (mediation)

10.3. General characteristics of the mediation process (mediation)

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Under the Act, the public prosecutor’s office may suspend proceedings for the purpose of mediation if the conditions set out in the Act are met.1 According to the legal definition, mediation is a procedure to facilitate the agreement between the suspect and the victim, the reparation of the consequences of the crime and the future law-abiding behaviour of the suspect, which may be applied at the request of the suspect or the victim or with their voluntary consent.2 This definition indicates a complex legislative intention, since it also includes aspects aimed at developing a culture of conflict management, compensating the victim and re-socialising the offender.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The theoretical basis of the construct derives from the theses of the restorative concept of justice, and therefore its inherent function is to satisfy the claims of victims. From the perspective of the implementation of this theory of justice, there are two main procedural models in Europe:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. Reparation is possible within the criminal justice system:
    • the compensation of the victim is achieved by the application of a criminal substantive sanction (e.g. reparation as a measure that can be applied in its own right);
    • the legislator attaches a criminal procedural consequence to reparation (e.g. termination of proceedings; non-prosecution),3 or
    • reparation is possible during the enforcement phase of the sentence (e.g. when serving a prison sentence).
  2. Reparation takes place outside the criminal justice system:
    • compensation is granted by the state, civil damages, victim assistance programmes or insurance companies, or
    • by so-called ‘diversion’, through the application of the rules of the mediation procedure.4
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Since the 19th century, there has been a continuous academic debate in the field of criminal law in Hungary about the intensified protection of the victim’s interests in criminal law. Among the greats of the period, Angyal already considered the so-called “satisfaction theory” to be an independent theory of punishment, and sought the legal basis and purpose of punishment – explicitly – in satisfaction.5 In comparison, Finkey considered general deterrence, satisfaction for the state and the victim, and education and moral influence on the convict to be the common aims of punishment.6 From these definitions, it can be seen that the representatives of ‘compensation theories’ identified not only material but also non-material harm as a consequence of each offence.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In Hungary, the introduction of victim protection provisions and the reform of the penal system based on new approaches was only possible after the regime change in 1989, and thus the literature on the subject was still waiting to be written.7 Whereas, the use of alternative dispute resolution had become a fundamental legal practice in the USA and in Western European countries.8

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

First of all, it is important to note that I consider the mediation procedure to be the most radical simplification procedure, since its effectiveness depends entirely on the agreement of the parties (the accused and the victim). I will therefore analyse separately:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • the legal rules governing the scope of the procedure;
  • questions relating to the status of public authority subjects or other participants in the procedure;
  • the procedure – in particular the provisions of the Mediation Procedure Act;
  • the principles governing the content of the agreements, and
  • the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure and the literature on the subject.

10.3.1. Considerations on the scope of the procedure

10.3.2. Procedure

10.3.3. The role of the mediator

10.3.4. Content of the agreement. Forms of reparation

10.3.5. Possible procedural consequences of mediation

10.3.6. Literature – criticisms of the procedure

1 In the proceedings for a supplementary private prosecution, mediation is only possible if the prosecution has taken over the representation of the prosecution [§ 787 (4)].
2 § 412 (1) para.
3 See the Slovenian model, in which the prosecutor suspends the prosecution if the offender either: (1) undertakes to repair or compensate for the damage; (2) makes a payment to a public institution, charity or fund for compensation of crime victims; (3) performs work in the public interest; (4) contributes to the costs of living. In: Ilona Görgényi: Kárjóvátétel a büntetőjogban, mediáció a büntetőügyekben. [Restitution in criminal law, mediation in criminal cases.] Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 2006. 145–146.
4 Görgényi (2006) ibid. 142.
5 Pál Angyal (1909) ibid. 31.
6 Görgényi (2006) ibid. 59.
7 The objectives of the concept of restorative justice were mainly: (1) to resolve the conflict between the offender and the victim (restoring the disrupted social situation); (2) to rehabilitate and re-socialise the offender; (3) to promote prevention rather than retribution; (4) to socialise justice. József Vígh: A kárhelyreállító (restoratív) igazságszolgáltatás. [Restorative justice.] Magyar Jog, 1998/6. 328.
8 The Bangkok Declaration, adopted at the 11th UN Congress in 2005, also signalled that international efforts to protect victims are ongoing. The draft declaration underlined the particular importance of further developing restorative policies, procedures and programmes to ensure the interests of victims and the rehabilitation of offenders, in order to avoid the harmful effects of imprisonment, reduce the caseload of criminal courts and promote the incorporation of restorative approaches into the criminal justice system. See Draft Bangkok Declaration Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Bangkok, 18–25 April 2005 (CONF. 203/L.5, point 32.)
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave