Mediation in criminal proceedings

a comparative analysis of models in the USA, Germany, and post-soviet countries

Abstract

In the contemporary world, criminal justice is undergoing a period of fundamental transformation. Innovative approaches aimed at restoring justice through dialogue and reconciliation are replacing the exclusively punitive paradigm. Criminal mediation, as a key instrument of restorative justice, opens new horizons for resolving conflicts arising from crimes, allowing victims and offenders to meet face-to-face in pursuit of healing and justice. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of three fundamentally different models of criminal mediation that have emerged within various legal traditions worldwide. The analysis encompasses the American model of adversarial restorative justice, with its emphasis on party autonomy and community participation; the German Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich system, distinguished by its systematicity and professional standards; and evolving reconciliation models in post-Soviet countries, where traditional approaches to dispute resolution meet modern legal reforms. The methodological foundation comprises an interdisciplinary approach that combines doctrinal analysis of legal norms with empirical research of practical outcomes. The study is based on an extensive array of statistical data, including German TOA statistics covering more than 7,000 cases, reports from the U.S. Department of Justice, and unique data from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine for the period 2015-2023. The research findings reveal a fascinating picture of diverse approaches to implementing restorative justice. The American model demonstrates outstanding flexibility and high victim satisfaction rates (85-95%), the German system impresses with its systematicity and stable results (70% successful completions), while post-Soviet models, despite more modest indicators (45-60%), represent a unique experience of integrating international standards with local justice traditions. The study convincingly demonstrates that the choice of legal tradition does not merely influence procedural aspects of mediation, but determines the very philosophy of the approach to restoring justice. Continental law systems create a solid institutional foundation for the systematic development of mediation, and common law systems ensure maximum adaptability to participants’ needs. At the same time, post-Soviet jurisdictions offer new opportunities to synthesize diverse legal cultures into a unified, harmonious system. The comparative analysis concludes that while no single model emerges as universally superior, effective criminal mediation implementation requires systematic legal integration, professional development, and adaptation to local contexts. The study proposes an integrated model that synthesizes the strengths of all three approaches while addressing their respective limitations, emphasizing the need for comprehensive enabling legislation, professional standards with community involvement, and graduated implementation strategies tailored to specific legal and cultural environments. This research makes a substantial contribution to the development of comparative jurisprudence and restorative justice theory, offering scientifically grounded recommendations for improving existing models and creating new criminal mediation frameworks across various legal systems worldwide.