31 dezembro, 2007
the poisoned mondays antidote
"Have you ever seen the rain?" - Creedence Clearwater Revival, do album "pendulum" editado por fantasy records em dezembro de 1970.
21 dezembro, 2007
aperguntacircular wekend lounge
the christmas edition.
Peter Cincotti - "Sway" (versão integral e ao vivo).
20 dezembro, 2007
feliz natal
Natividade mestre de Flémalle (Robert Campin)
1420
óleo sobre madeira , 87 x 70 cm
Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon
(clicar na imagem para aumentar)
19 dezembro, 2007
mediação e reincidência penal
Reincidência: s.f. acto ou efeito de reincidir, recidiva, recaída.
A pena – como consequência do processo penal e de uma condenação no seu âmbito – visa não só um propósito de assinalar à comunidade a reposição dos valores objecto de ofensa por parte de quem é condenado, mas visa de igual modo um propósito dissuasor que possuí tanto um âmbito comunitário, como individual. A pena, pela gravidade que impõe naquele que a sofre, visa igualmente evitar que no futuro o comportamento objecto de censura, seja novamente repetido por quem já o cometeu. A pena tem assim um propósito de objectar à REINCIDÊNCIA.
Essa é nomeadamente uma das dimensões que tem sido objecto de polémica no âmbito da mediação penal: saber ser a abordagem não adversarial permite igualmente apresentar credenciais ao nível da não reincidência [recidivism]. Segue pois um excerto sobre este mesmo problema e a resposta que a esse mesmo nível, aparentemente, a mediação consegue dar:
“Currently, most empirical studies conducted in this area show that restorative processes have a positive effect on recidivism rates. Note that some studies do not share this conclusion (…) On the other hand, the same study found a substantial drop in offending rates by violent offenders (by 38 crimes per 100 offenders per year.) In any case, even if not considered to be solid proof of the effectiveness of restorative processes, the cumulative effect of the recidivism studies in the area of restorative processes provides a strong indication of the potential of these processes. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Umbreit, aimed at searching for “evidence that VOM [victim offender mediation] participation is related to a decrease in the prevalence or severity of subsequent delinquent behavior,” found “a clear relationship between VOM participation and subsequent delinquent behavior.” According to this meta-analysis, after neutralizing the differences in definition of recidivism among the analyzed studies and other relevant variables, VOM participants were found to re-offend at a rate varying between 9% to nearly 27% lower than that of non-participants. Other studies show a reduction of approximately 20% in recidivism rates for offenders who participated in different types of restorative processes, although some findings demonstrate smaller differences and others differences reaching as high as a 38% reduction in recidivism. In addition, many of these studies found that in cases where participants in restorative processes did re-offend, this involved less serious offenses than those committed by non-participants.
This data is important for two reasons: First, even a 9% reduction in recidivism rates is a substantial mprovement and should not be taken lightly. (…)”
Essa é nomeadamente uma das dimensões que tem sido objecto de polémica no âmbito da mediação penal: saber ser a abordagem não adversarial permite igualmente apresentar credenciais ao nível da não reincidência [recidivism]. Segue pois um excerto sobre este mesmo problema e a resposta que a esse mesmo nível, aparentemente, a mediação consegue dar:
“Currently, most empirical studies conducted in this area show that restorative processes have a positive effect on recidivism rates. Note that some studies do not share this conclusion (…) On the other hand, the same study found a substantial drop in offending rates by violent offenders (by 38 crimes per 100 offenders per year.) In any case, even if not considered to be solid proof of the effectiveness of restorative processes, the cumulative effect of the recidivism studies in the area of restorative processes provides a strong indication of the potential of these processes. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Umbreit, aimed at searching for “evidence that VOM [victim offender mediation] participation is related to a decrease in the prevalence or severity of subsequent delinquent behavior,” found “a clear relationship between VOM participation and subsequent delinquent behavior.” According to this meta-analysis, after neutralizing the differences in definition of recidivism among the analyzed studies and other relevant variables, VOM participants were found to re-offend at a rate varying between 9% to nearly 27% lower than that of non-participants. Other studies show a reduction of approximately 20% in recidivism rates for offenders who participated in different types of restorative processes, although some findings demonstrate smaller differences and others differences reaching as high as a 38% reduction in recidivism. In addition, many of these studies found that in cases where participants in restorative processes did re-offend, this involved less serious offenses than those committed by non-participants.
This data is important for two reasons: First, even a 9% reduction in recidivism rates is a substantial mprovement and should not be taken lightly. (…)”
17 dezembro, 2007
aperguntacircular weekend lounge
Eu sei. É segunda-feira...
"Sway" - por Peter Cincotti, album "peter Cincotti" editado por Concord Records, 2003.
14 dezembro, 2007
a mediação impossível
blondie vs. angel eyes vs. tuco.
"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" - Sergio Leone, Dezembro de 1967.
13 dezembro, 2007
e depois de todos estes dias...
.... a mediação mantém importância no meu dia a dia? Inquérito. Respostas a efectuar no lado direito da página web, junto a outros inquéritos. E vejam, agradecemos todas as respostas!!!
11 dezembro, 2007
the poisoned mondays antidote
Eu sei. É terça-feira...
"You give me something" por James Morrison, album "Undiscovered", editado por polydor, Agosto de 2006.
07 dezembro, 2007
legitimar a justiça restaurativa
I. Preâmbulo
“It was a dry winter evening in January 2000. R., a young fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force, was driving his car way home to one of the suburbs of Tel Aviv.
Despite rush hour, traffic was moving smoothly, and R. was in no hurry. Suddenly the brake lights of the car in front of him came on and the car quickly came to a full stop. R. hit the brakes and tried to steer the car aside to avoid colliding with the car in front of him. He was unable to stop and the passenger sitting in the back seat of the car in front of him was killed instantly. The deceased was a mother on the way to her son’s wedding. The driver of the car was her daughter.
The police investigation determined that the car driving in front of R. slowed down and stopped due to heavy traffic and that the situation involved no unusual circumstances. If R. had paid more attention to the road ahead of him, he would have likely noticed the traffic delay and taken the necessary measures to avoid the accident. His negligence resulted in a fatal car crash.
The evidence of his negligence precluded any course of action other than to charge R. with negligent homicide, an offense for which the maximum punishment is three years imprisonment. In the arraignment hearing, R. entered a “not guilty” plea, which launched a long and intense trial. After nearly two years, R. was convicted as charged, but due to his impeccable record, his duties and contribution to society, and the circumstances of the accident, he was sentenced to six months of community service in an old age home and precluded from holding a driver’s license for a few years. For the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge who tried the case, there was nothing special about it. It was one of many fatal car accident cases which they were accustomed to handling. The outcome of the trial was determined by professionals, dealing with complex questions of substantive criminal law, evidentiary rules and procedure.1 The final sentence—well within the common range of sentencing for these types of cases—was anticipated from the start.
Ironically, even though the trial was controlled entirely by professionals, it was certainly not about them. It was the bereaved family, the deceased’s friends and neighbors, R., and his family and close friends that were affected by the fatal accident. It was their lives that changed after the accident. Therefore, the question should be: ‘How did the trial affect them?’ The short answer is “not well.” At the end of the trial, the bereaved family was devastated. They did not understand why the trial took so long and could not accept its outcome. They were personally hurt by the fact the young pilot did not assume responsibility immediately and lost all respect for the justice system that accepted this behavior. After close to two years of legal proceedings, the bereaved family and friends felt victimized again, this time by the justice system. Interestingly, R.’s reaction to his trial was probably not very different. As he clearly articulated in his confident testimony in court, he truly did not feel responsible for the accident. It is unlikely that he changed his mind after the conviction and probably perceived his conviction to be unjust.
Although the facts of this case occurred in Israel and were tried according to Israeli law, it is representative of the methods employed by most common law criminal justice systems as their primary response to crime. However, this method suffers from three basic deficiencies, illustrated in this case: (1) the lack of a meaningful role for crime victims, (2) inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and (3) inability to be perceived as just and fair. After two years of legal proceedings, the decedent’s family was victimized again by the justice system, the offender did not learn anything he did not already know before the trial began, and both sides felt they were treated unjustly.”
“It was a dry winter evening in January 2000. R., a young fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force, was driving his car way home to one of the suburbs of Tel Aviv.
Despite rush hour, traffic was moving smoothly, and R. was in no hurry. Suddenly the brake lights of the car in front of him came on and the car quickly came to a full stop. R. hit the brakes and tried to steer the car aside to avoid colliding with the car in front of him. He was unable to stop and the passenger sitting in the back seat of the car in front of him was killed instantly. The deceased was a mother on the way to her son’s wedding. The driver of the car was her daughter.
The police investigation determined that the car driving in front of R. slowed down and stopped due to heavy traffic and that the situation involved no unusual circumstances. If R. had paid more attention to the road ahead of him, he would have likely noticed the traffic delay and taken the necessary measures to avoid the accident. His negligence resulted in a fatal car crash.
The evidence of his negligence precluded any course of action other than to charge R. with negligent homicide, an offense for which the maximum punishment is three years imprisonment. In the arraignment hearing, R. entered a “not guilty” plea, which launched a long and intense trial. After nearly two years, R. was convicted as charged, but due to his impeccable record, his duties and contribution to society, and the circumstances of the accident, he was sentenced to six months of community service in an old age home and precluded from holding a driver’s license for a few years. For the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge who tried the case, there was nothing special about it. It was one of many fatal car accident cases which they were accustomed to handling. The outcome of the trial was determined by professionals, dealing with complex questions of substantive criminal law, evidentiary rules and procedure.1 The final sentence—well within the common range of sentencing for these types of cases—was anticipated from the start.
Ironically, even though the trial was controlled entirely by professionals, it was certainly not about them. It was the bereaved family, the deceased’s friends and neighbors, R., and his family and close friends that were affected by the fatal accident. It was their lives that changed after the accident. Therefore, the question should be: ‘How did the trial affect them?’ The short answer is “not well.” At the end of the trial, the bereaved family was devastated. They did not understand why the trial took so long and could not accept its outcome. They were personally hurt by the fact the young pilot did not assume responsibility immediately and lost all respect for the justice system that accepted this behavior. After close to two years of legal proceedings, the bereaved family and friends felt victimized again, this time by the justice system. Interestingly, R.’s reaction to his trial was probably not very different. As he clearly articulated in his confident testimony in court, he truly did not feel responsible for the accident. It is unlikely that he changed his mind after the conviction and probably perceived his conviction to be unjust.
Although the facts of this case occurred in Israel and were tried according to Israeli law, it is representative of the methods employed by most common law criminal justice systems as their primary response to crime. However, this method suffers from three basic deficiencies, illustrated in this case: (1) the lack of a meaningful role for crime victims, (2) inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and (3) inability to be perceived as just and fair. After two years of legal proceedings, the decedent’s family was victimized again by the justice system, the offender did not learn anything he did not already know before the trial began, and both sides felt they were treated unjustly.”
excerto do artigo "Legitimar a justiça restaurativa - uma justificação teórica para o uso de práticas restaurativas" de Zvi D. Gabbay retirado de Real Justice, International Institute dor Restaurative Practise.
05 dezembro, 2007
portugal vs. canadá
Li na newsletter do imap que alguns responsáveis governativos se deslocam ao canadá para aí tomarem conhecimento da estrutura organizativa, dos desenvolvimentos e inovações do sistema judicial canadiano. Por alguma estranha razão o canadá também tem sido objecto da minha visita virtual (está claro!) aonde tenho lido sobre experiências que aí têm sido conduzidas no âmbito da mediação penal. O meu local de visita? http://www.restorativejustice.org/ - Canadá!
Estará frio no Canadá??!!
03 dezembro, 2007
the poisoned mondays antidote
"Les Fleur": 4hero feat. Carinna Andersson, album "Creating Patterns" editado por Talkin Loud/Universal Records em 2001.
a mediação impossível
Mediar significa intervir, conjugar ou eventualmente convergir. Mas mediar significa igualmente estar no meio, ocupar uma equidistância entre algo, entre duas ou mais referências. E nesse meio (nesse ficar ou decorrer entre dois pontos) há um momento, um espaço ou uma abstracção onde podem ficar ou caber muitas coisas: distâncias, idades, meses, carros, dinheiro… ou pontos!
Assim e assumindo esse segundo significado de MEDIAR, a trivela do Quaresma foi aquilo que mediou ou tornou equidistante a vitória do FC Porto e a derrota do Benfica. E a classe pura é aquilo que precisamente estabelece a equidistância entre o FC Porto e todos os demais. Sete ou doze, respectivamente, são os pontos que medeiam entre os até agora considerados "principais contendores" clubisticos, fazendo da própria distância a que se encontram algo de eloquente…
E convenhamos que se num primeiro significado, Mediar ou Interceder é aquilo que todos pretendemos ou exercemos, a equidistância pontual existente – aquilo que agora medeia entre os contendores ou adversários futebolísticos – torna a eventualidade de qualquer convergência ou aproximação, simplesmente impossível…
Dá-lhe Quaresma!
Assim e assumindo esse segundo significado de MEDIAR, a trivela do Quaresma foi aquilo que mediou ou tornou equidistante a vitória do FC Porto e a derrota do Benfica. E a classe pura é aquilo que precisamente estabelece a equidistância entre o FC Porto e todos os demais. Sete ou doze, respectivamente, são os pontos que medeiam entre os até agora considerados "principais contendores" clubisticos, fazendo da própria distância a que se encontram algo de eloquente…
E convenhamos que se num primeiro significado, Mediar ou Interceder é aquilo que todos pretendemos ou exercemos, a equidistância pontual existente – aquilo que agora medeia entre os contendores ou adversários futebolísticos – torna a eventualidade de qualquer convergência ou aproximação, simplesmente impossível…
Dá-lhe Quaresma!
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
