This article deals with restorative justice practices in Surinam. It is based mainly on anthropological literature and preliminary research findings of four indigenous villages in Surinam, and is part of a broader study of Indigenous and Marron communities. In these villages the age-old customary law approach to conflict remains a lively practice, especially in the rainforests where central authority has little influence. The author highlights a number of restorative aspects of indigenous (criminal) justice practices, such as the group conferencing model of the Krutu and the role of the community (rehabilitation). Other aspects are not at all restorative, such as cases of double punishment (ne bis in idem), corporal punishment and the lack of the possibility of appeal. Because the trend of opening the hinterland seems to be unstoppable, it is recommended to coordinate national law and customary law and improve cooperation between indigenous and central authority. The article gives some suggestions for reforming the Surinamese Penal Code.

This article analyzes the opinion of twenty-four Surinamese ex-convicted young men on restorative justice. The results were obtained through four focus group sessions and a concise survey form. The factors (a) type of offense, (b) seriousness of offense and (c) prevention of recurrence were discussed. The opinions are divided, but the majority is of the opinion that restorative justice can mainly work for serious and violent crimes. Fear of revenge appears to be a barrier to participation. Employment has been indicated as the key to real recovery of the offender and prevention of recidivism (and thus satisfaction for the victim). The results provide insight into the susceptibility to restorative justice among this specific group in Suriname.

Restorative justice practices and policies have been growing in Belgium during last three decades. This article looks in particular at policy developments in the Flemish Community. It reconstructs how restorative justice has adopted a legal basis in 2005 and 2006 respectively in adult criminal law and juvenile justice. The rise and fall of the Belgian model of ‘restorative prisons’ is discussed. Special attention goes to the role of the Belgian State reform process, where the regions were given more competencies also in restorative justice matters. We investigate how this process of devolution has shaped the restorative justice landscape for the sectors of penal mediation, restorative mediation and conferencing. Some ambivalences in policy making are shown. Moreover, in recent years there are signs of a declining political interest in restorative justice.