Hungary

Provides a listing of articles on restorative justice developments in Hungary. Articles appear in the order in which they were added to the site with the most recent appearing first.

Restorative practices in Hungary: An ex-prisoner is reintegrated into the community

from the article by Vidia Negrea: As the representative of Community Service Foundation of Hungary, the Hungarian affiliate of the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), I participated in a group session of the Hungarian Crime Prevention and Prison Mission Foundation in summer 2009 (Sycamore Tree Project — www.pfi.org/cjr/stp/introduction — or Zacchaeus Program in Hungary). There I met the governor of Balassagyarmat prison, where inmates were working in groups on issues related to their crimes and exploring ways to repair relationships they had damaged. Some inmates began accepting responsibility for what they had done and were motivated to make things right and earn forgiveness of victims and their families. Prisoners made symbolic reparation in the form of community service within the prison, but there was still a lot to do to create opportunities for offenders to make contact with victims and shed the stigma of their offense by means of direct reparation. Also, prison management believed it important to support processes, acceptable to victimized families and communities, to help prisoners regain control of their lives and prevent reoffending.

Restorative Practices in Hungary — Transforming Schools and Prisons

From the Restorative E-Forum article by Laura Mirsky: In April 2010 Vidia Negrea, director of Community Service Foundation (CSF) Hungary, provided an introductory training in facilitating restorative conferences for four different youth group homes in Budapest. This is just the latest development in her work spreading restorative practices in Hungary, which also includes major efforts in schools and prisons. Psychologist Negrea came to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, in 2000 to learn about restorative practices and has never looked back. Her recent work has been supported by the Ministry of Justice Hungary and the city of Budapest, including a project to reduce aggressive behavior in children and youth, which is bringing restorative practices to six big-city high schools. At first some of the leaders in these high schools weren’t open to the idea of restorative practices. The success of the practices in the wake of one particular incident changed their minds.

evidence-based research and RJ

This is very excitng news. We need good solid evidence-based research to support what we already know: restorative justice works with all offenders regardless of [...]

Three-year research project on mediation and restorative justice in prison settings

from the flyer announcing the project: The Mediation and Restorative Justice in Prison Settings Project is a three year international exchange project funded by the European Commission, between the counties of Germany, Hungary and the UK. The project will identify, exchange and develop best practice for the use of restorative justice (“RJ”) with the most serious crimes, particularly those against persons and property attracting a custodial sentence. Research suggests that RJ can have the biggest impact on the lives of victims and offenders where such serious crimeshave been committed.

Pelikan, Christa. Who wants what kind of justice?

abstract unavailable

Gyokos, Melinda. "Restorative prison" projects in Hungary.

The Hungarian "restorative prison" projects has nothing to do with the procedure-oriented restorative practices. Instead, these programmes do not involve the party directly injured by the crime but offer a chance to convicts who show remorse to make amends while they serve their prison term. The inmates make reparations to the local community, which is indirectly affected by the crime (due to the violation of the law), and not to the specific and directly injured party, the victim. This means that instead of providing compensation for the specific injury they caused, the criminals improve the local community's life by producing useful and visible results.The common qualities of good practice that enable the prison to be a part of the host town's or area's life are presented below. (excerpt)

Hatvani, Erzsebet. Symbolic restitution: Community sanctions in the practice of the Hungarian Probation Service.

A broader concept of alternatives to prison includes not only the criminal law sanctions not resulting in the offender's imprisonment, but also the various forms of diversion, compensation and reparation. Reparative justice is closely connected to the new forms of alternatives to prison. In spite of this connection, there is one key difference: while in traditional criminal justice the offender is the "passive subject" of retribution and is required to suffer the punishment, under the community concept the offender is a "responsible subject" and the community thus expects the offender to take responsibility for the crime. (excerpt)

Slezakova, Zuzana. Introduction of the AGIS project and first results (abstract).

The European Forum for VOM and RJ launched in the beginning of this year an AGIS project called “Meeting the challenges of introducing victim-offender mediation in Central and Eastern Europe�?. Its main objective is to support developments of VOM in Central and Eastern Europe and to improve the exchange around VOM between the West and the East. The project is only possible thanks to the activity of the European Forum members and supporters and the financial support of the European Commission. It runs until November 2005; within its duration following activities are planned: 2 expert meetings and 2 seminars, and a final publication. The first expert meeting took place in June of this year. It concentrated on the current situation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The second expert meeting (planned for April /May 2005) will build on the first one and will look into what can concretely be done to give an impetus to the policy developments around VOM in CEE. The first seminar coincides with this Conference, and shall serve to bring the Western and the Eastern experts together. The second seminar, planned for September 2005, will present the results of the project and will be an opportunity to discuss how the conclusions and recommendations of the project can be used in a practical way. At the end of the two years a final publication will be published, which will bring together all the information collected during the entire project, analyse the project and will include recommendations for the future of VOM in CEE. As to the first expert meeting: it took place in Vienna, from 24 to 26 June 2004. 14 experts from Eastern and Western European countries and also representatives of the European Forum took part. During the meeting, the situation on VOM in the participating countries was presented. The particular impact was set to the typical factors (both negative and positive) in CEE countries in relation to the implementation of restorative justice. The main results will be presented. Author's abstract.

Wachtel, Ted and McCold, Paul. From restorative justice to restorative practices. Expanding the paradigm.

For the last decade, the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), which grew out of the Real Justice program, has been developing a comprehensive framework for practice and theory that expands the restorative paradigm beyond criminal justice (McCold & Wachtel, 2003). Academicians and practitioners tend to do their work within their own distinct disciplines and professions. In contrast, the emerging field of “restorative practices�? offers a common thread to tie together theory and research in seemingly disparate fields of study and practice. The restorative practices framework presented here is the collective effort of the IIRP’s staff and friends around the world. Since the founding of the IIRP’s Real Justice program in 1994, we have attempted to find or develop applicable theory and definition to apply not only to restorative justice, but also to all the related fields that might benefit from this new way of thinking. The fundamental unifying hypothesis of restorative practices is disarmingly simple: that human beings are happier, more productive and more likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them, rather than to them or for them. This hypothesis maintains that the punitive and authoritarian to mode and the permissive and paternalistic for mode are not as effective as the restorative, participatory, engaging with mode. If this restorative hypothesis is valid, then it has significant implications for many disciplines. For example, contemporary criminal justice and educational disciplinary practices rely on punishment to change behavior. As the number of prison inmates and excluded students grows unabated, the validity of that approach is very much in question. In a similar vein, social workers doing things for and to children and families have not turned back the tide of abuse and neglect. (excerpt)

Boserup, Hans. Advanced techniques and dilemmas in mediation. The issue of autonomy and social control in particular.

Surfacing information to the mediation table is crucial. Information is surfaced to serve the parties rather than serving the mediator. Methods of obtaining and sharing information are diverse. Mediator style in bringing out information and the personalities of the players can change the whole concept of mediation as a practice. Six categories of mediation have emerged as most widely known: 1) Generic, 2) settlement-driven, 3) cognitive systemic, 4) transformative, 5) humanistic and 6) narrative. Some mediators’ methods of uncovering information and defining issues are inconsistent, however, with the individual mediation style chosen. The ability to choose a specific type of mediation suitable for the situation at hand requires the ability to identify and perform the each of the different mediation styles. The “community mediation movement�? of North America (including penal, neighbourhood, and family) gave birth to a similar movement in Europe in the eighties. The first family and victim-offender mediators in Europe naturally shaped the meeting between the parties after that generic community mediation model. As with the rest of the western world, other mediation styles in Europe were developed in order to serve different purposes. When doing commercial or corporate mediation, civil mediation, family mediation, community mediation, VOM (Victim Offender Mediation) or VOC (Victim Offender Conferencing) we can draw on experiences from this variety of styles. In both the generic, transformative, humanistic and narrative mediation models, we attempt to identify feelings, needs and concerns of the parties in order to create an environment for empathy, empowerment and recognition. Author's abstract.

Chankova, Dobrinka. COST Action A21: Policy oriented research (Working group 2).

In compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding of COST A21 Working Group 2 (WG2) is doing Policy oriented research on restorative justice developments. According to the European Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (articles 10 and 17 ) Member States should adapt their national laws in order to implement mediation by the year 2006. With the current state of affairs, Member States have little guidance on what works and what doesn’t in the restorative justice field in terms of organising the practice. This research domain intends to give a better view of just this. The WG2 subject matters attracted a huge number of researchers- currently the group consists of 21 members from 13 different countries, of different stage of RJ developments, it is the largest one in the Action and I dare say that all members are very much involved and work hard. Our activities started in September 2003.The WG2 met two times in the course of 2003 and two times in 2004 (by now). The research domain itself was originally split up in 4 sub-domains, and later one a new subdomain was added. WG2 nominated for each sub-domain one or two responsible persons (‘reporters’). The chair of the group is Vania Patane, Italy. We have started working on the first 4 sub-domains effectively more or less simultaneously, whereas action on the new sub-domain has still to be started. (excerpt)

Aertsen, Ivo. COST Action A21: General presentation.

COST stands for ‘European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research’. COST Actions are concerted actions (networks) of nationally funded research and development projects. Actions within COST are co-funded by the European Union and supported by the European Science Foundation. COST Action A21 on ‘Restorative Justice Developments in Europe’ concerns a European network of researchers from 20 countries, which was started late 2002 and which will run until the end of 2006. COST Actions are open to member states of COST (34 European countries + Israel), but also institutions from non-COST countries can participate to some degree. More recently, still other opportunities to attend meetings have been created for Balkan countries, European NIS countries (New Independent States) and Mediterranean countries (from North-Africa and the Middle East). The main objective of Action A21 is to enhance and to deepen knowledge on theoretical and practical aspects of restorative justice in Europe, with a view to supporting implementation strategies in a scientifically sound way. In order to reach this general objective, a network of researchers has been created to: 1) exchange and discuss research needs, methods and results; 2) co-ordinate research projects in the respective countries as far as possible and desirable; 3) stimulate or support further (common) research projects. (excerpt)

Mestitz, Anna. A Grotius project on victim-offender mediation youth offenders in Europe.

The project “Victim-Offender Mediation: organization and practice in the juvenile justice systems�? was co-funded by the European Commission Grotius II Criminal Programme (2002/GRP/029) from November 1st, 2002 to January 31, 2004 (15 months). The project was promoted and coordinated by Italy with two partners: Austria and Belgium. Namely, I was the project coordinator and I was supported by a valuable leading group which included the two partners: Christa Pelikan, Inge Vanfraechem and my Italian colleague Simona Ghetti as well. The basic idea was grounded on the fact that EU member States are not only asked by the Council of Europe to promote victim-offender mediation (Recommendation No. R(99)19), but they are specifically requested by the EU Council to adapt their legislation to this aim by March 2006 (Framework Decision of March 15, 2001, arts. 10, 17). As a consequence the information collected through this project was expected to be useful for both participant and non participant countries. Our general aim was to provide an overview of the state of the art concerning victim-offender mediation with young offenders in the European states in order to provide updated comparative information regarding the context, the organization, the structure, the financial and human resources needed for adopting victim-offender mediation with youth offenders. In fact each country needs to set up these conditions as well as norms and procedure permitting to carry out the mediation. (excerpt)

Van Garsse, Leo. A legal framework for mediation. (Legislation on mediation: The end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?)

In his 1996 sketch of the origins of restorative justice in the United Kingdom, Tony Marshall emphasised the major role played by field workers. They were guided not so much by new theoretical insight, but rather by the need to find concrete solutions to the problems they encounter in everyday practice. Looking back on the history of mediation in Belgium, I am able to confirm this vision for the most part. This pragmatic arrangement gave rise to diversity in the practice of mediation in the domain of criminal justice. In a small country like Belgium, if we limit ourselves to only mediation, we count at present four mutually independent mediation programmes, each subsidised by a different governmental body. Nevertheless, the situation in the field, at least in Belgium, does not correspond to the chaotic image that some would like to depict. There is a broad consensus among field workers concerning a definition of mediation as the systematic guidance by a neutral third party of a voluntary and confidential process of communication between the parties directly involved with the offence. From this follows the relative unpredictability of the mediation efforts with respect to duration, content and final result as well as, above all, the subjective, intimate and always unique character of the intended process. These points of departure by definition place mediation in the role of antagonist with respect to traditional legal proceedings whose qualities include objectivity, transparency, predictability and comparability. Thus, the desire to develop offender-victim mediation further is inevitably faced with the difficult question concerning whether or not this should be done within a legal framework. (excerpt)

Williams, Brian. Recent UK legislation on offenders and victims of crime: restorative justice or co-option?

This paper reviews some recent criminal justice legislation and policy in England and Wales and considers whether the changes which have been introduced genuinely implement new, restorative approaches or whether attempts have been made to purloin the rhetoric of restorative justice for other purposes. Author's abstract.

Bullens, Frederik. Selecting cases for mediation (abstract).

In his presentation, Frederik Bullens studies the selection of mediation files. Reminding the main question of the conference (‘Is the increased implementation of restorative justice programmes fashionable or does it really change the penal system?’), the author starts with the Belgian (more exactly: Flemish) practice of mediation for redress. In 1993 the mediation for redress started in Leuven as an action-research. Since 1996 it is embedded in a mediation service and, on demand of the minister of justice, implemented in the judicial districts. At the moment there are mediation for redress programmes in 9 of the 14 Flemish judicial districts. This very fast process of implementation brings some restorative justice thinkers to a high level of enthusiasm. They often picture Belgium as an example, an example that proves that it is possible to change the penal justice system into a restorative justice system. But is this really the case? The author looks at the selected files and asks three simple, but nonetheless very important questions. How many judicial files are put into the mediation for redress programmes, who selects the judicial files and how many victims or offenders (or support services for victims and/or offenders) ask for a mediation for redress? The hypothesis is that a restorative justice programme is successfully implemented if it is sustained by the broader society and not only by the penal system (the public prosecutor). Author's abstract.

Hastie, Keith. Establishing and sustaining a restorative justice programme.

When considering the establishment of a Restorative Justice Service, we first need to ask ourselves - are the principles that underpin restorative justice compatible with the current political climate? In Scotland, for example, the values of the Lord Advocate (a political appointee) and subsequent guidance in the book of regulations may not be favourable to a restorative justice approach. Should the government appoint a Lord Advocate who favours restorative justice, individual Procurators Fiscal may interpret the book of regulations according to their own values. In the first instance, Procurators Fiscal determine whether or not prosecution is in the public interest. In some programmes based on a ‘deferred prosecution’ model of restorative justice, the Procurator Fiscal is the master of the instance until all agreements are fulfilled. That is, the outcome to a victim/offender mediation may not be acceptable to the Fiscal, who may proceed to prosecution. Indeed the Fiscal in one area, in what could be considered to be an attempt to address possible power imbalances, has decreed that “unreasonable demands in negotiation or unreasonable withdrawal from the service will lead to a review of the need to prosecute�?. Secondly, government appointed prosecutors are aware of the politically damaging effects of a lack of public confidence in the justice system. (excerpt)

McCold, Paul. Dangers and opportunities of setting standards for RJ practices.

The nature of standards and guidelines will be shaped by the different understanding and definition of restorative justice in each country. The specific standards and practices established will likely affect what programs get government funding and which ones do not. The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) is dedicated to the development of restorative justice around the world. Standards of practice present both dangers and opportunities for the IIRP mission and the restorative justice movement more broadly. The opportunity is that good restorative practices could receive official governmental recognition and support and the pseudo-restorative programs could be defined out or at least be seen as not the focus. The dangers are that standards will be defined narrowly with bias toward a particular model (e.g., mediation or FGDM) or be so broadly defined that everything counts as restorative justice (e.g., community panels, youth offending teams, community service sentencing). Rather than establish a position on every point raised in the different proposals, IIRP is establishing a set of value preferences stated as general principles to serve as a guideline for evaluating proposed standards of best practice in restorative justice. (excerpt)

Nelson, Liz. The development of a strategic approach to restorative justice - the issues for Government.

First of all I’ll say a few words about the development of a restorative justice strategy in England and Wales, and three key elements of our approach. I will then look at some of the issues we are grappling with in practical policy making, questions which I hope will have relevance to policy and strategy development in any country. There have been small-scale restorative justice schemes in the UK for many years. But a turning point in the use of RJ was when the UK Government transformed the Youth Justice System in England and Wales after 1996/[with the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act], including building restorative justice into a series of new initiatives for young offenders. Following these reforms to the Youth Justice System, the UK published the first ever Government strategy for restorative justice in England and Wales in July 2003, covering both the adult and the youth criminal justice systems. (excerpt)

Jakob, Beni R. Breaking the chains of cross & trans-generational crime: Can restorative justice family circles be part of the re-solution?

I am a newcomer to the field of Restorative Justice and decided to thrust myself into this area as a result of my own experience as a psychologist and mediator. The aim of this paper is to propose an emphasis on a certain direction of action and in parallel raise questions for reflection and discussion. In my humble opinion, the current criminal system does not achieve the goals expected from it. Furthermore, I would assume that criminal activities may continue to rise whilst budgets may continue to decrease, therefore, the system would be even more inadequate. Change of approach and practice in Society’s Institutions seems to be inevitable. Contrary to public myths, experts claim that about 60% of crime is committed between non-strangers. Furthermore it is claimed, that most offenders were victims themselves. The trend in democratic society entailed intensive interventions of the State in the Family. The current radical shift from socialism to liberal democracy might result in a shift of responsibility back to the family. Government would have essentially only a regulatory role. Such trends might definitely have a further impact on families, which are already going through a process of deconstruction. Families play a central role in developing one's identity, sometimes over several generations. The implications are that interventions for change would focus again on the Family. In order to interrupt criminal patterns that run across families and people who know each other, or were by themselves victims, Families themselves might be the most effective change agents. The first and foremost challenge would be to restore to the Family its sense of legitimate authority and responsibility. When dealing with families in which suspected as well as actual crime is an issue, professional facilitators will have to seek ways to empower them. (excerpt)