Pathology of the Status of Mediation in the Criminal Policy of Iran and France

Abstract

Criminal mediation is a process that, with the aim of reforming and rehabilitating the offender and reducing the caseload of the judiciary, helps foster responsibility-taking and restore social trust through a constructive agreement between the accused and the victim or the community, rather than relying solely on judicial confrontation. Using descriptive, analytical, and comparative methods and drawing on library-based sources, this article examines the pathology of the status of mediation within the criminal policies of Iran and France. The objective is to compare the effectiveness, social acceptance, and rehabilitative impact of this process in both criminal justice systems in order to clarify shared strengths, common challenges, and structural differences. The findings indicate that in both Iran and France, the position and function of criminal mediation are characterized by overlap and are simultaneously confronted with rehabilitative and control-oriented objectives; however, mediation operates predominantly as a judicial instrument rather than as an independent institution. The rehabilitative approach emphasizes compensation for harm and rehabilitation, whereas the control-oriented approach focuses on reducing recidivism and ensuring security. Both countries lack a coherent framework and an independent standard model, and practical initiatives are often implemented in a fragmented manner through judicial authorities or law enforcement agencies, which leads to reduced effectiveness and diminished public trust. Consequently, in practice, mediation is more focused on reducing case backlogs and managing social crises than on developing an independent and effective institution grounded in scientific principles.