The Belgian Customs Administration has taken the lead on the federal level to elaborate an anti-corruption policy. Up till now the initiatives of the administration D&A consisted of: anti-corruption training for the complete staff, a distribution of the relevant regulation concerning corruption and the setting up of an internal complaints desk. These measures suggest that mainly the individual employee has to take responsibility to prevent corruption. Based on three related research stages we conclude that the social-economic context and the organisational characteristics also contribute to the explanation of corruption which implies to go beyond the micro-level when developing an anti-corruption policy. The structure of our analysis is based on the five key variables of Gobert and Punch: the social, economic and cultural characteristics, the nature and structure of the organisation, rationality, neutralisation techniques and moral disengagement and crime facilitative characteristics. This contribution is the first section of a research project on the responsibilities of the public sector and the private companies for public corruption.

There is a large – and still growing – body of criminological literature on the relationship between crime and work. However, the exact nature of that relationship often remains diffuse. In this article we explored the relationships between organized crime and work. Based on analysis of the forty most recent cases of the Organized Crime Monitor we distinguished between two types of relations connecting organized crime and work. First, crimes can be based in the occupation of the offender when the occupation provides concrete opportunities to offend or facilitates the crimes of others. Secondly, the occupation of the offender can also be used as a shield concealing the illegal behavior or identity of the offender.

Employment and crime are commonly assumed to be negatively correlated. Those employed are less likely to commit crimes, and conversely, those who have a criminal record are less likely to become employed. Criminological research has provided strong empirical and theoretical support for the link between employment and crime, but also suggests that a complex set of mechanisms may be at play. Additionally, studies show that employment can also increase the risk of criminal behaviour. In the introduction of this special issue, three causal relationships in the work-crime nexus will be discussed: employment causing crime, employment preventing crime, and crime blocking future employment.

This section contains announcements of upcoming lectures, conferences and other events.

Using longitudinal data on the criminal careers of a group of high-risk men and women (N=540) who were institutionalized in a Dutch juvenile justice institution, this article addresses the effects of employment on crime. Results show that a large part of the sample is convicted for a serious offence at least once during the follow-up period. Participation and frequency of offending are higher among men compared to women. Employment participation of both men and women is below average. Fixed effects as well as random effects models show employment to reduce the odds of offending. Only for men, employment stability has an additional negative effect on offending.

A period of labor market absence decreases the chance to get a job. Previous research showed that labor market positions of both incarcerated and temporarily unemployed people are worse after compared to before the (forced) time out of the labor market. It remains uncertain which mechanisms cause the negative association between labor market absence and employment outcomes. In this paper we investigate whether incarceration affects the time to employment differently than regular unemployment. Using an unique quasi-experimental design we conduct event history analyses in order to estimate to what extent job opportunities differ for a group of ex-prisoners (N=1,790) and a group of unemployed future prisoners (N=266). The results show that ex-prisoners find a job more quickly than unemployed future prisoners. Possibly, training, aftercare and the prison experience (deterrence) have a positive effect in the period right after release.

Comparing the developments in the Netherlands with those in Belgium the authors find important differences relating to the questions pertinent to implementation. Experiments have also been done in the Netherlands and their evaluations showed positive results, but there were different models which were not clearly – or not at all – related to the traditional criminal justice process. They all were lacking the formal collaboration with the courts, that was seen in Belgium. There has been no form of central direction and no important influence from the academic world and the various projects have officially been replaced in 2006 by a national policy of implementing ‘victim-offendertalks’. These talks have their merits and are appreciated by victims and offenders, but they do not amount to mediation in a restorative style, since restorative agreements are not allowed to result. Nevertheless, there are a number of indications that restorative justice practices could still become recognized and accepted. Staff of the police, the public prosecutors office and judges are interested and new experiments are beginning. The new development of local ‘veiligheidshuizen’ (‘front offices for safety’) offers a promising setting for interagency co-operation and conferencing with citizens in trouble and conflict. The conferencing-model has gained broad acceptance in the context of juvenile care and may continue to inspire justice personnel. In process now is the foundation of a new restorative justice network, called ‘Restorative Justice Netherlands’.

Responding to Bouverne-De Bie and Roose Walgrave stresses the importance of using a narrow definition of restorative justice as a way of doing justice by repairing the harm caused by crime. This narrow definition alone allows for the development of a consistent praxis and theory of restorative justice and for adequate research of its effects. Restorative Justice cannot offer the ´politically critical´ social praxis on the interface between the public and the private world that Bouverne-De Bie and Roose would like to see. But the apparent influence that basic concepts and ideas of restorative justice have on social practices outside the sphere of criminal justice imply that such social practices and restorative justice praxis can work in the same direction by avoiding stigmatization and exclusion and promoting redress and inclusion.

Conceptions of what ethics are about inform the expectations one has when consulting ethicians. To illustrate this Pattyn shows how two different conceptions of ethics generate two opposite expectations. One could either consider ethics as a specific disciplinary domain that can evaluate and judge decisively about a certain phenomenon on the basis of fundamental criteria, or see ethics as the study of the ways in which a phenomenon – such as restorative justice – can appear as a morally accountable praxis in a specific cultural setting or ‘situated understanding’. Pattyn argues that only the second view makes sense and discusses several types of settings and understandings in relation to various types of judicial settlement. The conclusion following from the analysis is that the ambitions of restorative justice amount to an everyday moral strategy to heal the damaged cohesion of social groups after a transgression and to offer offender and victim alike the opportunity to rehabilitate.

The authors discuss the space that can be found for restorative justice in decisions on human rights issues in the criminal procedure by the European Court of Human Rights, based on par. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is room for restorative justice because the court accepts the waiver of the procedural rights and safeguards by the defendant, provided that he does so completely voluntarily, after being fully informed, and provided that there is no important public interest that stands in the way of out-of-court settlements. The alternative procedure to a full dressed criminal trial should, in addition, live up to such standards that the procedure can be judged fair. Pressures on avoiding unreasonable delay and legal counseling necessary to fully inform the defendant about his options can lead to a formalization of restorative procedures which can be a threat to the merits of restorative justice.

The author, reflecting upon both Bouverne-De Bie & Roose and Walgrave, deplores to some degree the fact that the Journal for Restorative Justice, from its foundation, has narrowed its focus and scope by making it a priority to attempt to influence the criminal justice system. Most of the conflicts and troubles between citizens never reach the criminal agencies and are dealt with by other methods, such as methods of social work, without approaching the police. The potential scope for influencing conflict-behavior is therefore immensely greater outside the sphere of the criminal law.

Social (re-)integration is such a complex phenomenon that it is not possible to make a direct link between restorative justice and social reintegration of offenders. If one considers restorative justice, not in its utility for maintaining the law but as a praxis of social work, one could get the impression that restorative justice runs the risk of individualizing the social problem of crime by making offenders responsible and of losing sight of the structural dimensions causing or contributing to criminality. The same structural dimensions may appear to be a blockade for effective emancipation of offenders from their often marginal and powerless positions. Considered as a praxis of social work, restorative justice should be able to promote (the awareness of) accountability and the mutual exploration of the many roads that can lead to effective emancipation and reintegration.

The author responds to Huysmans and Verbruggen by stressing the importance of recognizing that the criminal procedure has aims, which are entirely different from the aims of restorative procedures. If things can be so arranged that the criminal justice system provides for a structural place and use of restorative procedures, these should and could be guided by different rights and safeguards, which fit and reinforce the different aims of restorative justice and promote their justice qualities. Initial legal studies to develop suitable procedural rights and safeguards for restorative justice have been produced and should be elaborated upon.

Van Stokkom endorses Pattyn’s criticism of principled ethics. It is more convincing to view ethics as a way to understand moral practices and moral experiences. For example, the ethical value of restorative justice practices resides in moral communication in which the participants strive for recognition. Nevertheless, Pattyn does not notice that moral justifications often rely on ethical principles. When we must make choices or introduce new policies, we often cannot escape justifications that fit in with ethical principles. Nevertheless, these principles may also paralyze or polarize discussions. In populist times – with its punitive rhetoric – it seems wise to keep public discussion at bay from ‘high restorative principles’ such as the ‘superfluity of punishment’ and concentrate on the narrative power of restorative justice practices.