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. (…)”