Repeated intimate partner violence should not be mediated, but in the case of the first, mild act of violence, mediation should be provided if both so wish.
In Helsingin Sanomat mediation of intimate partner violence has been discussed. As a mediator of intimate partner violence, I see how the suspects repent and are willing to take responsibility. In a special meeting, they openly state the reasons they thought led to the act and are willing to seek help for themselves.
Separate mediation meetings are important to the parties and often the first time they can talk about their lives in confidence.
The violence that has taken place is a bastard coming between people, the existence of which is to be eradicated by silence. Its consideration in court and the imposition of a fine do not promote discussion between the parties, let alone that the act does not end up in the district court due to its minority.
Repeated intimate partner violence should not be mediated, but in the case of the first, minor act of violence, mediation should be provided if both want it and their relationship continues to be close. Reform measures should be targeted at providing adequate discussion assistance to the parties and referral to substance abuse or mental health services. Those in the district court should also be obliged to a non-violence assistance program.
Ending the conciliation of domestic violence is not the answer to reducing this violence. Yes, the child would go with the washing water.
supervisor, criminal and litigation mediator, author
Reader opinions are speeches written by HS readers, selected and delivered by HS editorial. You can leave a comment or read the principles of the writing at www.hs.fi/kirjtamielipidekirjoitus/.