Offenders victim Compensation
The offender-victim reconciliation is a way for the offender and the victim to work together to settle a conflict out of court or at least to achieve mitigation in criminal proceedings through the efforts of the offender .
The perpetrator-victim compensation is set out in § 155a , § 155b StPO and § 46a StGB . It is seen as an element of the restructuring of criminal law in order to include the victim's perspective more closely in court proceedings.
development
In principle, the offender-victim balance is the most natural form of conflict settlement, because without a state, the punishment must inevitably be regulated between the perpetrator and the victim. Since it is not possible to commit a new crime, there is only a compensatory act by the perpetrator towards the victim.
Accordingly, a kind of perpetrator-victim compensation can already be found in the oldest legal collections such as the “ Codex Hammurabi ”. Even in Roman law, which is heavily influenced by civil law, there were penalties in the form of increased compensation payments to the victim. In fact, offender-victim balancing remained a common method of punishment even into the late Middle Ages.
With the emergence of the state and the associated bundling of public power in state hands, the type of punishment by the state that still prevails today prevailed. On the one hand, this served legal security, on the other hand, the emerging states wanted to exercise and demonstrate the power they had gained.
The first indications of the offender-victim compensation in modern times can be found in legal theoretical writings by Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel , but it was not until 1990 that a perpetrator-victim compensation regulation was finally introduced in juvenile criminal law. In 1992, the working group of German, Austrian and Swiss criminal law teachers presented an “Alternative Draft for Reparation” (AE-WGM), which provided for an extensive regulation of offender-victim compensation within criminal law. This alternative draft - not least because the perpetrator-victim balance had proven itself in juvenile criminal law - was finally reflected in Section 46a of the Criminal Code in 1994 and was supplemented in 2000 by procedural regulations in Section 155a and Section 155b of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
classification
Offender-victim reconciliation is the predominant form of restorative justice practice in Germany . However, offender-victim reconciliation and conflict mediation in conflicts relevant to criminal law are not identical. The offender-victim settlement is only correctly used to describe the legal consequences under criminal law.
German criminal law is based on two principles, the retaliation of committed crimes (absolute criminal theory) and the prevention of future crimes (relative criminal theory). That is why the individual statutory penal provisions criminalize certain actions that the state considers reprehensible. The threatened range of punishments serves, on the one hand, to deter and thus prevent criminal offenses; on the other hand, the state exercises retaliation by exercising its monopoly of force through appropriate punishment in accordance with the criminal regulations.
In this way the state intervenes in the relationship between perpetrator and victim. It is noticeable, however, that this only happens on the perpetrator's side. He is punished, while the victim has relatively little of it and is largely left to himself after the crime, because even if, within the framework of criminal theories, potential victims are to be protected by preventing crime, people who have already become victims do not receive any Protection against possible after-effects.
The perpetrator-victim reconciliation is intended to counteract this by including the victim in the compensatory atonement process of the perpetrator and thus assists the protection of victims within criminal law. As indicated, this cannot happen within the framework of the usual criminal law process, in which the state only acts as a retaliatory authority. Rather, the victim should benefit in some way from the offender's punishment and receive a certain amount of compensation accordingly. In addition, the victim is perceived in the perpetrator-victim reconciliation (in contrast to the court process, where he primarily serves as a witness) in his emotional situation and with his material demands.
For a better understanding, the offender-victim compensation can to a certain extent be based on the civil law compensation concept of compensation. In this case, the perpetrator has to pay for the damage he caused to the victim. This now includes, on the one hand, the offender's punishment for his actions, namely the payment of money, and, on the other hand, compensation for the victim, who actually receives something from the punishment. The perpetrator-victim reconciliation is also based on this principle: after the crime, the perpetrator and victim are brought into a certain reciprocal relationship, from which a reconciliation between the two parties is to be achieved without direct intervention by the state, which simultaneously punishes the perpetrator and the victim compensated. In individual cases this can already be achieved when the perpetrator understands his injustice and the victim forgives him.
In this way, the perpetrator-victim compensation brings about a settlement of the conflict that has arisen as a result of the crime, going beyond the criminal theories - because these are also fulfilled. At the same time, the idea of compensation is now seen as the third trace of the system of legal consequences in criminal law, alongside punishment and measures.
Participation plays a central role in the offender-victim balance. The attempt at compensation gives the perpetrator and victim the opportunity to act independently. They are therefore not the objects of a formal procedure, but rather autonomous subjects who can decide for themselves. You decide whether there will be a victim-offender balance, in what form it will take place, which content will be discussed and which results are fair.
Communication between the parties involved is at the forefront of the offender-victim reconciliation. What happened is discussed together, whereby each of the participants has the opportunity to describe how the incident was experienced and what consequences it resulted for the person. This constructive form of conflict management is intended to help those involved find a lasting, peace-building solution to the conflict.
In contrast to criminal proceedings, the parties involved in the victim-perpetrator do not see each other as opponents, but rather strive to resolve the conflict together.
aims
If the perpetrator-victim reconciliation is carried out, the following should be achieved:
- an amicable settlement between the accused and the injured party
- both sides see their concerns as taken into account
- the reduction of the consequences of and secondary conflicts (prevention)
- ensuring the autonomy of the conflicting parties
- the fulfillment of the agreed regulation
- avoiding injustice
Voluntariness as a basic requirement
The prerequisite for the offender-victim compensation is the voluntary willingness on the part of the victim and the offender to participate in the out-of-court arbitration. A settlement under duress is not possible because the mediation of the conflict is based on the parties involved at least partially engaging with the other person's arguments. The perpetrator-victim compensation must therefore be viewed as an offer that can be refused at any time. In particular, the victim's “yes” - who freely decides in favor of it without any kind of social and psychological pressure - is a condition without which no step can be taken towards a victim-offender balance.
Suitable cases
In the context of the initiative of a victim-offender settlement by the public prosecutor or judge, § 155a StPO speaks of “suitable cases”. Altogether, the following three aspects can be distinguished, which characterize a case that is suitable for a victim-offender balance, but basically every case comes into question.
Type of offense
The legal regulation of Section 46a of the Criminal Code does not limit offender-victim compensation to certain, for example lighter, criminal offenses. But according to a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice on June 6, 2018, “a communicative process between perpetrator and victim” is needed to compensate for the consequences, which is not possible with committed homicides .
In addition to this obvious example, the perpetrator-victim reconciliation is not always the optimal way of criminal proceedings in other cases. On the one hand, the perpetrator-victim reconciliation requires a certain thought of remorse on the part of the perpetrator, but on the other hand the victim must also be able to agree to a reconciliation. Minor acts committed out of affect are more likely to allow the perpetrator to think of repentance than a cold-blooded and deliberately planned act. Accordingly, more harmless crimes are often only relatively minor impairments of the victim, which in turn opens the victim to the willingness to compromise between perpetrator and victim.
It follows from this that lighter crimes are more suitable for offender-victim balancing, as the statistics on the right show. However, more serious crimes are not excluded, because in these cases too the perpetrator can be remorseful and the victim can overcome his fear of meeting the perpetrator. In addition, in murder cases, where the bereaved are also victims in a certain way, mediation between them and the perpetrator may enable a better processing of what happened and mutual understanding. In some countries (e.g. Belgium) there are projects that address this issue.
Perpetrator characteristics
.jpg)
However, when it comes to the question of the applicability of the perpetrator-victim balance, the type of offense cannot be assumed. The characteristics of the perpetrator also play a decisive role here.
As already mentioned, perpetrators who act out of affect are more suitable, as are those whose crimes were more of an "accident". The cold-blooded robber is therefore less suitable for a perpetrator-victim balance than a simple cherry thief who has been overcome by temptations. Likewise, a first-time offender will be more willing to compromise offender-victim than a serial offender.
The statistics also show that the perpetrator-victim balance is mainly used with younger perpetrators. The older the perpetrator, the less likely there is a victim-offender balance.
As a result, the perpetrator-victim balance is most likely to be applied to younger first-time offenders who have more or less unintentionally committed a crime.
State of affairs
Probably the most important point to be considered when applying the perpetrator-victim balance is the situation.
The prerequisite is either a clear state of affairs or the admission of guilt by the perpetrator, because the perpetrator-victim balance should lead to the settlement of the conflict between perpetrator and victim and not degenerate into a factual dispute. The mediator is not a legal expert and cannot take evidence as part of a victim-offender settlement.
One of the goals of the perpetrator-victim balance is victim protection and this can only be ensured if the roles of perpetrator and victim are established. As soon as the perpetrator negates the act in an actually open conversation, the victim is, so to speak, hit a second time by the perpetrator's injustice and the injustice is even deepened.
In order to avoid such misunderstandings, it makes sense to aim for a perpetrator-victim balance only in the case of clear facts or if the perpetrator admits his guilt.
Principles
The three central elements of the perpetrator-victim reconciliation are the coming to terms with the crime, pacifying the conflict and negotiating reparation. In addition to these, the principles of voluntary implementation apply to both parties through a neutral mediator. In principle, compensation can be sought for any crime.
Coming up with the act
In a first step, the perpetrator-victim balance is used to give both parties the opportunity to present their point of view and deal with what has happened (both the perpetrator and the victim). There is also a first confrontation with what has happened (mainly the perpetrator). Perpetrators and victims should express themselves and they are also given space for emotions.
The victim often feels powerless against the perpetrator, even if the act has already been concluded, because the perpetrator is still viewed as a threat. On the other hand, most of the perpetrators feel left out of society because they no longer feel as socially accepted as before.
The injustice of the act thus represents a two-sided barrier that must be overcome. From a psychological point of view, it is important to become aware of these different attitudes on the part of both sides in order to advance the arbitration in the next step.
Pacification of the conflict
The aim of the arbitration is to pacify the conflict. The point is that both parties come to terms with the situation by coming to terms with the crime and B. Fears are reduced.
To go back to the two parties, it is a matter of restoring the balance of power, i.e. H. the victim needs to be empowered, while the perpetrator needs acceptance. In the best case, both sides move towards each other through simple compensatory acts. Does the perpetrator apologize B. remorseful with his victim, the fear of the overpowering perpetrator is taken away from him to some extent. This is done through the symbolic weakness that he shows through the apology. On the other hand, through the forgiveness of the victim, the perpetrator feels a re-acceptance into society, as the already mentioned injustice is relativized.
This in fact already leads to the resolution of the conflict between the perpetrator and the victim and also has the consequence that after reducing fear and restoring social acceptance, both sides can work together better on a further balance.
Negotiation of redress
As a third key element, the parties need to negotiate redress. The symbolic reparation of the perpetrator can be determined in any form: Examples are compensation for pain and suffering, damages in the form of money, but also favors. In addition, the perpetrator has the opportunity to work hours. These are paid out from the so-called victim fund and used to redress the crime. This victim fund is refilled again and again through fines. The wishes of the victim are taken into account. An important aspect here is that this contract is binding for both parties and that compliance is monitored.
The contract not only serves as evidence for the court of the perpetrator's efforts, but can also form a guideline for the perpetrator to make reparation. In addition, in the event of a refusal by the perpetrator, the victim can invoke the agreement.
The procedure
initiative
The basic prerequisite for a victim-offender balance is always the consent of both sides, offender and victim. Accordingly, the initiation can come from one of these two sides, but it can also be initiated by a public prosecutor or judge in accordance with Section 155b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In practice, the perpetrator-victim compensation is often suggested to those involved by the public prosecutor's office in consultation with the police, the youth justice department or the courts. However, those involved can also turn directly to one of the perpetrator-victim compensation offices located throughout Germany. Under certain circumstances, the public prosecutor's office can temporarily suspend the investigation in favor of the offender-victim settlement .
procedure
1. Separate preliminary talks
In separate preliminary discussions, the course of the procedure is first explained for each party individually and possible alternatives (e.g. civil action) are also discussed. However, the focus is on the act itself with its causes and consequences. The preliminary discussions give the parties time to reconsider the offender-victim balance or to express expectations or fears with regard to the impending confrontation with the perpetrator or victim. Also ideas and suggestions for reparation can be introduced. The binding appointment for further discussions forms the conclusion. If the will to find a victim-offender compromise is lacking, referrals to lawyers or victim counseling can still take place.
2. Compensation talks
The first balancing interview begins with clarifying the requirements for the interview. Examples of this would be respectful interaction or letting the other speak out. Then victims and perpetrators describe what happened from their perspectives. The special thing about this form of argument is that both parties can and are allowed to show feelings. In contrast to legal proceedings, which involve facts, the parties can, in the best case scenario, also deal with the crime emotionally. There is an exchange of perceptions and both sides can more easily change perspective. All of this takes place within the framework of the so-called reparation conference .
Here are two assessments of those involved in a victim-offender settlement:
“For me afterwards this man was, so to speak, the incarnation of insecurity, of threat. [...] As a result of the TOA, I have said that I am glad that I got to know the perpetrator. [...] That I know a little what kind of person it is, how he lives, and that he is actually not a violent criminal. I'm happy about that. [...] So that this phantom character is lost! That the victim has the opportunity to look closely at the perpetrator. Simply to determine: this is only a human and not some monster! But also a safe space to give the accused a proper opinion. "
“Then the assault happened. [...] After I was summoned by the police, I thought to myself, you have to do something because you didn't want to! […] That was an offer from the mediator that said, we'll all sit down there, you can talk there. And at first I was totally afraid of it. Well, I'm the one to blame, somehow I'm sitting in the hot seat. But it was all totally voluntary and I thought that could only help me. I'm really not that kind of thug. [...] I just wanted to apologize for the matter. "
In a second, final phase of the reconciliation talks, the perpetrator and victim have to find ways and means to determine reparation for the victim and negotiate a binding agreement. In general, it is possible to stipulate any type of compensation in the subsequent contract. As already indicated above, this can be compensation for pain and suffering, but also social activities towards the victim. Both parties can be given time to reflect on their decision.
3. Graduation
The agreement, an at least partially amicable and final arrangement, is formulated in a legally correct manner and signed by both parties.
The agent then has the task of aftercare and must monitor compliance with the contract.
In a final step, he informs the public prosecutor of the result of the settlement, which can then, if necessary, discontinue the proceedings against the perpetrator or, in the case of serious criminal offenses, consider his efforts to mitigate the penalty.
Compared to mediation
The offender-victim reconciliation is a type of classic mediation that has been modified in favor of criminal law . Hence, some comparisons can be made.
Comparison of the legal texts
First a tabular overview of the respective legal regulations:
| Offenders victim Compensation | Mediation | |
|---|---|---|
| aims | Reparation for the act ( Section 46a No. 1 StGB) Substantial personal performance + compensation ( Section 46a No. 2 StGB) |
Amicable settlement of the conflict ( § 1 MediationsG) |
| Procedure | Initiative by the public prosecutor or court ( § 155a StPO) | Initiative of the parties ( Section 2 (1) MediationsG) |
| At every stage of the procedure ( § 155a StPO) - parallel to the court proceedings |
At any stage and without any underlying procedure, regardless of court proceedings ( Section 1 (1) MediationsG) |
|
| Only in suitable cases ( § 155a StPO) | Termination by either party is possible at any time ( Section 2 (5) MediationsG) | |
| Not against the will of the injured party ( § 155a StPO) | Voluntariness ( § 1 MediationsG) | |
| Mediator | No legal regulations | Regulations in § 3 , § 4 and § 5 MediationsG |
Comparison of objectives
Mediation is characterized, among other things, by its interest-based nature. During the talks, the aim is to generate the motivation for the behavior of the parties and thus to disclose unspoken things. The perpetrator-victim reconciliation pursues exactly the same goal: the parties can address their wishes for understanding, forgiveness or reparation.
But there is a big difference in the fact that mediation works in a problem-oriented manner, whereas the perpetrator-victim compensation is compensation-oriented. This is due to the fact that the question of guilt between the perpetrator and the victim has already been or should be clarified, either through clear facts or because the perpetrator admits the guilt. The problem that the act represents cannot be resolved retrospectively, so an attempt is made to find a balance for the future.
Comparison of the formal procedures
This section only refers to the legal framework; see 5. (The procedure) for the actual settlement process. Only the time of the initiative and the final agreement are dealt with here.
1. Time of the initiative
In the event of a dispute as well as a criminal offense, mediation or a victim-offender settlement can take place at any time during and, if no legal proceedings are pending, regardless of the proceedings. There are consequently no time restrictions, even if it often makes sense to use the fresh emotions and to initiate mediation or offender-victim reconciliation as quickly as possible.
2. Final agreement
Here, too, parallels can largely be drawn between the two methods. Both are based on voluntariness, i.e. H. In principle, none of the parties can be forced to mediate or to settle perpetrator-victim and thus also not to a final agreement. However, it is possible that at the end of the settlement process, one party will only reluctantly consent to the final agreement. In contrast to mediation, no agreement may be accepted against the will of the victim in the offender-victim settlement. This can in turn be explained by the principle of victim protection on which the perpetrator-victim balance is based, because the victim must in no way be disadvantaged after the unilateral and relatively serious act of infringement by the perpetrator.
Comparison of the mediators
In addition to the additional training to become a mediator in criminal matters, the perpetrator-victim mediator also differs from the classic mediator in his point of view between the parties. If the highest value is placed on impartiality in mediation , the mediator tends to take a stronger, balancing and mediating position in criminal matters. He does not appear as a judge, but can still protect the victim if necessary.
Opportunities and possibilities
The victim can ...
... make clear to the perpetrator the consequences of his crime (damage caused, hurt feelings, anger and indignation).
... avoid the hassle and expense of civil proceedings in the event of material damage.
... meet the perpetrator as a person and possibly reduce fears (make it easier to deal with the crime and reduce the risk of subsequent conflicts).
... resolve a conflict independently.
The perpetrator can ...
... describe the background to his behavior and take responsibility for it.
... show that he takes the victim's feelings seriously (sincere apology).
... actively bring the matter back to order through reparation (of one's own accord instead of ordered by a court).
... learn more than he / she would probably have learned from “just paying money” or imprisonment; also because what is learned is directly related to the offense.
... benefit if the proceedings can be terminated or the sentence reduced.
Perpetrators and victims can ...
... resolve the conflict that may have been pending for a long time together, break down mutual prejudices and achieve an understanding and perspective.
... reach a satisfactory solution to the conflict through your own efforts.
... part in good terms.
... avoid unnecessary legal disputes and make state sanctions superfluous.
... resolve conflicts faster and unbureaucratically.
The judiciary ...
... is relieved and can spend more time on cases in which legal proceedings appear essential.
Risks and Criticism
The use of the perpetrator-victim balance is not without controversy. Although reparation can be achieved for the victim faster and less bureaucratic than in court, there is still a risk that a victim will accuse someone without it being legally clarified whether he is to blame. This problem arises from the fact that compensation can be sought even before the proceedings, although it is doubtful whether the public prosecutor recommends such compensation if the perpetrator vehemently denies the allegation.
However, the offender could also see compensation as a way of circumventing the criminal liability in whole or in part. The motivation would then be wrongly to circumvent the sanction and not to make repentant reparation to the victim. There is also the possibility that the perpetrator-victim balance, even if it was set up for the purpose of victim protection, runs counter to precisely this goal. If the victim agrees to the compensation and thus overcomes a certain inhibition threshold, then it will be all the more disappointed if the compensation does not come to a satisfactory result. In these cases, the victim suffers a sort of second attack after the crime.
A kind of secondary victimization of the victim can also occur if the victim is pushed to balance the victim and perpetrator. In some cases (e.g. if criminal acts have taken place within families or other groups of people in which internal power dynamics are at work) this is hardly comprehensible on the part of the mediator and thus represents a threat to the psychological integrity of the victim.
In addition, there is a risk of retraumatisation on the victim's side if the victim suffers psychologically from the consequences of what happened and z. B. has developed a post-traumatic stress disorder after a physical attack. In these cases, a victim-offender compromise is not advisable in order to protect the victim.
Another risk that the perpetrator-victim balance harbors is that violence could be perceived as negotiable. This has to be avoided; Because even if it is important to give space to the perspective of the perpetrator - just like that of the victim - it should be made clear that violent acts - regardless of the external conditions they were associated with - are not an option for the future and also as a past option Actions are excused, but irreversible.
One point that can have a negative impact on the perpetrator - and thus on the entire process of offender-victim reconciliation - is the intermediary's lack of the right to refuse to testify. If the attempt at compensation fails, he can be summoned as a witness in court and may then have to testify against the perpetrator. This fact can make it more difficult to create a trusting atmosphere in the mediation, because the perpetrator may “twist a rope” from his willingness to cooperate and talk, and is a point that must be addressed in any case before the perpetrator-victim reconciliation begins should.
Another difficulty lies in the fact that the offender-victim balance has so far not found widespread use. On the one hand, this is due to the relatively tight regulation in the legal text - the AE-WGM (alternative draft reparation) has z. For example, a much more fundamental reform is envisaged in order to integrate the offender-victim balance into criminal law - on the other hand, the perpetrator-victim balance has not yet reached the awareness of those involved. Too seldom has this been seen as a real alternative to normal criminal proceedings.
Ultimately, there is always the residual risk as to whether the contract will actually be adhered to. However, since the perpetrator and the victim have approached each other in a certain way during the reconciliation meeting and should have given each other's point of view, it can be assumed that there is a willingness to comply. After all, both sides negotiated the contract independently.
The victim can not only be a private person, but also a company like Sky Deutschland . These obtained compensation payments totaling € 150,000 in a perpetrator-victim compensation against several pay-TV hackers.
literature
- Dieter Rössner : Mediation and criminal law . In Dieter Strempel (ed.): Mediation for practice . Haufe-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
- Service office for TOA and conflict resolution: TOA Standards (PDF; 523 kB), 6th edition, Cologne 2009
- Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ): Offender-victim compensation in Germany . Berlin 2011.
- Nurit Shnabel / Arit Nadler: A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation . In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, Volume 94, No. 1, pp. 116-132
Web links
- Nationwide TOA statistics from the Federal Ministry of Justice (PDF file; 793.4 KB)
- Overview of the TOA from the Ministry of Justice NRW (PDF file; 2.5 MB)
Individual evidence
- ↑ Hartmann / Steengrafe, TOA-Infodienst 43/2012, 28 f .; Kaspar, Mediation and Consensual Conflict Resolution in Criminal Law NJW 2015, 1643 ff.
- ↑ Netzig, L. (2000). “Useful” justice. Offender-victim reconciliation from the perspective of those affected. Hanover: Forum Verlag Godesberg, ISBN 3-930982-52-8 , p. 115
- ↑ Janke, M. (2004). The perpetrator-victim balance in criminal proceedings. At the same time a contribution to a critical criminal procedure theory. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Kovac, ISSN 1615-8148 , pp. 25f
- ↑ Janke, M. (2004). The perpetrator-victim balance in criminal proceedings. At the same time a contribution to a critical criminal procedure theory. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Kovac, ISSN 1615-8148 , pp. 37f
- ↑ Service office for TOA and conflict resolution. TOA Standards , 6th edition, Cologne 2009, ISSN 0947-5249 , p. 9
- ↑ Service office for TOA and conflict resolution. TOA Standards , 6th edition, Cologne 2009, ISSN 0947-5249 , p. 7
- ↑ Federal Court of Justice: Decision of the 4th Criminal Senate of June 6, 2018 - 4 StR 144/18 -. Retrieved on March 18, 2020 (paragraph 12): “In keeping with the legislative intention, § 46a No. 1 StGB, according to the established case law of the Federal Court of Justice, requires a communicative process between offender and victim aimed at a comprehensive compensation of the consequences caused by the crime must. According to the meaning and purpose of the provision, it is indispensable that the victim accepts the perpetrator's services as a peacemaking compensation [...] "
- ↑ Maximilian Amos: BGH on perpetrator-victim compensation for surviving dependents: Too late for remorse. In: Legal Tribune Online . October 2, 2018, accessed October 9, 2018 .
- ↑ Buntinx, Kristel: Offender-victim compensation in homicides. Opportunities and risks. http://www.lwl.org/lja-download/fobionline/anlage.php?urlID=11248&PHPSESSID=ce87bae42a6d1d4f0c65fffc96ac787d (June 20, 2013)
- ↑ Netzig, L. (2000). “Useful” justice. Offender-victim reconciliation from the perspective of those affected. Hannover: Forum Verlag Godesberg, ISBN 3-930982-52-8 , p. 143
- ↑ Trenczek : Offender-Victim Compensation - Basic Thoughts and Minimum Standards , Zeitschrift für Rechtssppolitik 1992, pp. 130 ff. As well as mediation and offender-victim compensation. Characteristics and professional standards , magazine for conflict management 1/2016, p. 4 ff.
- ↑ [1]
- ↑ a b Experiences with the TOA. In: taeter-opfer-ausgleich.de - The portal for offender-victim compensation. Offense settlement and consensus e. V.
- ↑ on this in detail Trenczek : Mediation and perpetrator-victim compensation. Characteristics and professional standards , magazine for conflict management 1/2016, p. 4 ff.
- ↑ a b Netzig, L. (2000). “Useful” justice. Offender-victim reconciliation from the perspective of those affected. Hanover: Forum Verlag Godesberg, ISBN 3-930982-52-8 , p. 60
- ↑ Janke, M. (2004). The perpetrator-victim balance in criminal proceedings. At the same time a contribution to a critical criminal procedure theory. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Kovac, ISSN 1615-8148 , pp. 234f
- ↑ Sky: suspended sentences in the process of computer fraud with cheap pay TV. In: Meedia. February 5, 2019, accessed February 5, 2019 .
