This paper examines moral injury, in relation to recovery from this kind of psychic damage and to restorative justice. In recent research the concept is developed in distinction from the psychiatric diagnosis PTSD. Whereas PTSD is rooted in anxiety, as it occurs during or after life-threatening situations, people suffering from moral injury are disruptively affected by guilt and shame, in the slipstream of which they may be tormented by remorse, self-loathing, anger and self-disgust – with symptoms similar to PTSD. Unlike PTSD, however, the risk of moral injury is part of ordinary life. It may happen to anyone. Therefore, this paper takes an ‘existential’ perspective by relating moral injury to the fundamental human condition of relationality. Moral injury is interpreted as the disturbance of the responsibility, the confidence and the security that fundamentally sustain the human relationships to the world, to each other, and to oneself. One way of recovering from moral injury is through empathy, primarily performed by caregivers or chaplains who guide the morally injured, and consequently accomplished by the injured themselves, in a narrative way.

In this article, we report on our initial findings (from the field) regarding conflict resolution among the Maroons in Suriname. After first providing some background information about the Maroons (section 2), we describe their manner of conflict resolution after a crime has taken place and we explain what justice within this context entails for them (section 3). Subsequently, we try to distil ‘the useful elements’ from the Maroons’ approach to crime, that is to say elements with which modern restorative justice, i.e. restorative justice that meets, inter alia, human rights and constitutional requirements, can be nourished and strengthened. We also discuss some of the challenges we have encountered, where the traditional legal system and the modern criminal justice system come together (section 4). Then we try to build some possible bridges between the two legal systems (section 5). The contribution concludes with providing a window on the future of the development of restorative justice in Suriname and the Netherlands.

This article outlines two points of criticism related to Christopher Marshall’s discussion of a relational justice of care. First, addressing the needs of the parties involved in a criminal justice case finds its appropriate place in the post-trial stage. In the pre-trial and trial stages, protecting the legal rights and equal treatment of suspects should take priority over caring for suspects. Secondly, if the outcome of the restorative encounter in the pre-trial stages has a bearing on the verdict of the judge, the encounter may risk to lose its authenticity. The offender may have reason to believe that a socially appropriate performance will be rewarded with less punishment.

The first part of this article presents three academic theories on radicalisation: Moghaddam’s staircase model of radicalisation, Galtung’s typology of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence), and Staub’s psycho-educative approach. The core of Staub’s approach is that in conflict periods, people can be psychologically manipulated through their own fears, insecurities and unresolved traumas. Therefore, psycho-education and the empowerment of people are highly necessary to stimulate citizens to function as active bystanders when they are confronted with wrongdoing. In the second part of this article some promising approaches are pres­en‍ted which might increase personal and social resilience. The role of narratives in understanding experiences and changing identities is discussed. Radio La Benevolencija in Rwanda uses the power of storytel­l‍ing to stimulate resilience among the population. In the concluding paragraph a two-pronged strategy on radicalization is presented. This positive criminological perspective aims to promote active bystandership, participation and resilience.

Organizing restorative justice practices around crimes involving extremist violence remains a difficult task. It is not self-evident to bring perpetrators with very specific and radical ideas into contact with their victims. Nevertheless, interesting initiatives have been made in a number of European countries. In Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland, among others, initiatives were taken in response to the extremist violence that these countries experienced at the end of the 20th century. These initiatives have a very specific context and praxis, initiated ad hoc with attention to the specific needs of those involved. In no case can they be considered standard models or generalized practices. This contribution describes some of these initiatives in Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland and reflects on the potential uses of these dialogues in general.

In this article, some of the findings of a practice and policy oriented research project on ‘radicalisation’ are discussed. The research was carried out in a partnership between three Belgian universities and two field organisations during the years 2017-2019. The project aimed at a ‘Constructive analysis on the attitudes, policies and programmes that relate to “radicalisation”’ (CONRAD). Restorative justice offered the initial framework to design and to set up the project. This article offers some findings and reflections on the opportunities (and the limits) that were found in the project with respect to the relevance of restorative justice. This part of the research was done on the basis of a frame-analysis on the one hand, and field work on the other. The article first presents the restorative justice assumptions that formed the backbone of the project. Then, the method of ‘inductive frame-analysis’ is presented as this was applied to a sample of media and policy documents that reported about ‘radicalisation’ and ‘de-radicalisation’ related issues in Belgium. This resulted in the identification of four frames and eight counterframes. The field work in the form of ‘participatory action research’ with young persons and their organisations in the cities of Brussels and Verviers is then discussed, revealing a complex situation of social tensions. It is argued then that the use of frames and counterframes can help those involved in, or concerned about, social problems to look at these issues from another perspective, through another lens. Based on the method of photo-elicitation, cartoons related to frames and counterframes were designed in the project as a tool to facilitate talking about ‘radicalisation’ from different perspectives. The article ends with reflections on the relevance of restorative justice in dealing with ‘radicalisation’ and violent extremism. A broad relational and participatory approach to respond to these ‘phenomena’ at societal level is proposed.

This contribution advocates a fresh look at counteracting radicalization. Two frameworks are used for this. In the first place, that is the restorative justice that we have coined here as ‘making amends’. We need this normative framework because it provides clues for the prevention of ‘transgressing’ forms of radicalization, which can lead to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, we use an Activism of Hope framework, which states that we may and must resist social deprivation and injustice. After all, deprivation and injustice are the breeding ground for radicalization.

Reports by citizens are a great source of information for the police. Local residents often know well what is going on in their neighborhood and which situations are suspicious. In this study, an online survey was conducted to investigate what drives citizens to report to the police. A wide range of individual, social and institutional drivers were explored. The results show that the more often people have reported anything to the police in the past, the higher their risk perception, self-efficacy, citizen participation and police legitimacy. Furthermore, participants with a higher degree of self-efficacy, response efficacy, trust in the police and police legitimacy appeared to be more willing to report in the future. An open question regarding what motivates people the most to report show that response efficacy (the idea to what extent reporting has an effect on increasing safety and reducing crime) and altruistic values (justice, to help society and punish the perpetrators) were mentioned most frequently.

Citizens investigating crimes themselves is a growing trend, because of democratization of information (e.g. social media), tools (e.g. apps) and knowledge (e.g. explanimations on YouTube). More and more citizens do their own research as modern Sherlocks. The police has to handle these trends in line with participant wishes and the law, but does not yet have concrete tools to do so. This article explores how the police participate in contemporary citizen criminal investigations, including the difficulties and benefits experienced. The obtained insights of the presented research serve as guidance, which can help police officers understand how to participate with citizens who have started, or want to start, a criminal investigation. The presented model explains how police can use it to better guide and stimulate, but also stop or protect citizens in their investigative activities. An app with professional guidance was piloted in four police units to participate with citizens that do their own research and learn from expectations and experiences. Citizens need guidance, but more importantly expect a certain degree of reciprocity in collaborating with police in criminal investigations.

Citizen engagement in public safety is increasing rapidly. This trend, also known as responsibilisation, causes new dilemmas for (local) goverments. This article is based on a case study on a local group in the Dutch municipality Neder-Betuwe. These vigilantes arrest suspects by using extensive and professional equipment. By using the theory of normative practices this article compares the practices of the vigilantes and the local police. Their attitude to themes as safety, community values and the core values of the Dutch rule of law differs. This puts pressure on cooperation between vigilantes and police officers.

In former times, citizens themselves were responsible for ensuring and protecting their own safety. Over the years, this responsibility largely shifted to the government, partly due to the establishment of an institutionalized police force. In recent years, citizens have increasingly reestablishing themselves in domain of social security. Citizens are engaged in tasks that are traditionally seen as primarily the responsibility of the police, such as law enforcement, criminal investigation and immediate in case of emergencies.
Technology can be considered as one of the major driving forces behind this increasing contribution of citizens in the field of security. Technology makes it possible to quickly find and share information and enhances people’s ability to deal with cognitively complex tasks. In a certain way, technology democratizes police work by making the skills and tools available for every citizen.
In this article we will discuss the value of a specific form of technological support for citizens in their search for missing persons: the missing persons app ‘Sarea’. The Netherlands has a high number of missing persons and in many incidents citizens start searching themselves. Often, this citizen initiatives are uncoordinated. Therefore, an app has been developed by the police to help citizens start and coordinate their own searches for a missing person.