Restorative Justice is not evident in cases of intimate partner violence, but it can take and does take place under certain conditions. Wolthuis and Lünnemann explain about the European research they coordinated in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK) on context and practicalities of the use of victim-offender mediation in such complex cases. Cases dealing with violence of mainly men against women and where power imbalances often play a role. That means that mediators, referrers and others involved should know about this complexity and the needs of participants. Austria and Finland turned out to have the most experienced working methods. Their models, good practices and challenges are presented as well as the main outcomes of the research. Interviews and focus groups in the countries gave additional insights. It resulted in a guide with minimum standards addressing the different stages of a mediation process with extra attention for safety and empowerment.

Positive criminology criticizes punitive measures, repression, crime control and the ‘politics of fear’, and re-values positive concepts as trust, solidarity, well-being and ‘ontological security’. In this book-review it is argued that many of these positive terms are beyond the scope of criminology and that peace and peace-making are more appropriate terms that can be used within a criminological context. Peacemaking criminology provides a basis for constructive approaches to conflicts and disorder; it may also outline the contours of the peace-making function of the law and the peacekeeping tasks of judges and police officers.

This narrative aims to identify a number of challenges for the future of (green) criminology. It discusses what the three traditional criminological questions about criminalization, etiology and the social reaction imply in a ‘green’ context. For each of those topics, we analyse where the goals of green and mainstream criminology align and pay attention to research projects on these topics in the Netherlands and Belgium. In the end, this allows us to identify the following challenges for the future of (green) criminology: theoretical foundations, methodological creativity, interdisciplinary research projects and dialogue, and a research focus that goes beyond a preoccupation with the Global North.

The authors focus on the restorative justice policies of the city of Utrecht. The Utrecht Mediation Model is a framework in which so called Peaceful Schools and Peaceful Community organisations work together with inhabitants, youth, police officers, public prosecutors and mediators (both voluntary mediators and professional registered mediators). The authors discuss some of the benefits of this large-scale collaboration in Utrecht-neighbourhoods. The added value of the Model is especially felt in so-called Large and Xtra-Large community conflicts. The mediators work together with police officers in order to realise peaceful solutions, while safeguarding the autonomy and independence that both professions require. The authors also discuss some of the competences of the professionals involved. Finally they address the financial revenues of the Model; public spending is relocated from repressive to restorative strategies.

Some believe that the credibility of restorative justice can be increased if more attention is given to the quality of the mediator, as well as methods to select people with the right profile or by training. At first glance this seems a legitimate aim: mediation services should offer quality. Reflecting on practical experience and research into mediation between offenders and victims in Flanders, the author problematizes these assumptions. The quest for tangible quality to ensure ‘credibility’ refers to a neo-liberal approach aimed at reducing risks and promoting the client’s satisfaction. In this article the author confronts the apolitical approach of client satisfaction with alternative ideas about (restorative) justice. Ideally, the mediator is critical of established (legal) authorities and professional expertise. Mediation is political in nature, even if the mediator relies on neutrality. The mediator must be aware of his – inevitable – political stance and should be ready to be interrogated on this matter.

The mediator in criminal cases operates in special setting which requires specific competences: knowledge of the field of criminal law, knowledge of psychiatric/psychological problems and – if necessary – be able to consult a network of experts in that field, being prepared to operate in complex offender-victim relations and also to deal with high-escalated conflicts. These requirements raise a number of questions regarding the rules of the Dutch mediation federation, which are not designed to be used in the context of criminal law. Mediators in criminal cases are in need of other rules and pre-conditions to fulfil their work adequately.

The author illustrates the complexity of cases mediators are confronted with by using two exemplary cases. Sometimes legal issues deriving from family law, divorce law and criminal law all are disputed at the same time, frustrating and even blocking all parties including their legal counsels who are also part of the conflict-system. When a conflict-system becomes contaminated, often support systems are mobilised. If a mediator wants to play a role in sorting out the process – which is not his fundamental task – it is best to seek co-operation with the legal counsels.