This article adopts German philosopher Hans Vaihinger’s Philosophy of “as if” as a vehicle to sketch the main features of the emerging research domain of narrative victimology, as well as address some of its limitations. Vaihinger emphasizes the importance of useful untruths, i.e. things we know to be untrue, but nevertheless behave as if they are not, if that strengthens their use as instruments for us to find our way more easily in the world. This applies to our daily lives, but also to our societal institutions and the models and metaphors that underlie our approaches to (social) science. The paper argues that the narrative metaphor of the historical event is often more apt to enhance our understanding of victimological phenomena than that of the mechanism, which is the default metaphor of (social) science. The paper subsequently describes four areas of inquiry of narrative victimology: victimisation’s impact on (life) stories; narratives in the aftermath of victimization; narratives of victim’s experiences with justice processes and the coincidence and juxtaposition of the victims’ narrative with narratives of other significant parties. For all its merits however, the narrative metaphor is also a “useful untruth”, equipped with its own limitations, for instance the difficulty of language in describing first hand experiences of victims and the possibility that narrative structures will be imposed upon victim experiences.

In this article, an analysis is made of two response models for different forms of abuse and violence that occurred in the past on children in institutional settings. Two programmes are compared, as they operated during last 10 years in Belgium: on the one hand the Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse and violence in the Catholic Church at the national level, on the other hand the Commission for Recognition and Mediation for various types of abuse and violence in youth and educational institutions and other organisational contexts in the Flemish Community. Both models are analysed and compared at the conceptual and empirical level from a restorative justice approach, looking at the elements that may reveal a certain form of restorative justice and/or may contain lessons for the further development of restorative justice. The background and origins of both programmes are presented into detail, followed by a comparison with respect to the political options on the basis of their creation, the composition of their boards, their scope of application and their procedures. Some numbers and characteristics of cases dealt with are presented.
The analysis of both models points at the presence – in varying degrees – of important restorative justice elements as provided in the international literature. However, restorative justice standards are more prominent in the Flemish Commission for Recognition and Mediation as compared to the national Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse in the Church. Both programmes also demonstrate that restorative action is needed at different, mutually interwoven levels: the personal (micro) level, the institutional (meso) level and the societal (macro) level. At the institutional and societal level the transformative potential of the interventions is very much needed, but also most challenging in terms of the development of effective restorative methods.

In this contribution, the authors take stock of the many diverse restorative justice programs that have been implemented in many countries, worldwide, over the past twenty years, and that have involved a number of problems. They also discuss a number of new developments and areas of concern, including victim participation, the relationship with common law, cases of serious crime and the role of the community. The authors hope the new UNODC Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes to be as successful as the previous edition in promoting new ways to apply restorative justice principles in criminal matters and helping practitioners benefit from each other’s experience.

This article critically examines the prospects of restorative justice in Brussels from the perspective of urban youth work. The insights issue from action research on the topic of ‘radicalisation’. The authors develop two arguments. The first tempers restorative optimism. It shows how restorative interventions are not necessarily the most adequate response to tensions and conflicts in urban settings. The second argument points out that resistance from urban youth workers regarding the implementation of restorative interventions should not be seen as a regrettable obstacle for academics who are eager to experiment with these interventions. Such a resistance can lead to new insights and fresh opportunities to radically rethink Restorative Justice. One of the ideas that the article brings to the surface comes down to this. In a city like Brussels, characterised by superdiversity, and clearly marked by social inequalities, academic researchers only gain credibility in initiating restorative interventions if they undeniably denounce these inequalities and fully express their engagement for social justice.

The 20th anniversary of this journal is a good reason to glance back at developments with restorative justice for children and young people. Can we say that restorative youth justice has become mature? Some core events and articles about developments in Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere are discussed, paying attention to young suspects as well as victims. Subsequently, the embedding of restorative justice in youth laws is discussed. Finally, the article focuses on the question what should be done to improve the implementation into an effective, child friendly and ‘rights based’ youth sanction model.

This article discusses the concepts of society and community involvement as they appeared in the articles of the Dutch-Flemish Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht (Journal of Restorative Justice) during last 20 years. It shows how the journal from its very beginning adopted a strong focus on criminal justice reform, although restorative practices within the community occupied a considerable space in the consecutive volumes as well. Studies on restorative justice programmes in Belgium and The Netherlands, such as victim-offender mediation and family-group conferences, revealed a predominant orientation on interpersonal relationships stressing the role of the community of care. In the same sense, also community mediation and other community oriented restorative practices focus on the personal well-being of people and the improvement of personal and social relationships. Hence, both theory and practice face two important challenges in developing restorative justice: (1) which role to give to a larger community and how to operationalize its involvement, and (2) how to deal with underlying causes of crime and social-structural injustices? Referring to European action-research projects and to conceptual models developed outside Europe, a case is made for designing restorative justice methodologies and programmes involving civil society in a more encompassing way and linking micro to macro societal levels. Developing strategic alliances with new social movements could be the way forward.

Why and how mediated contact between victims and offenders (and members from their networks) leads to positive outcomes, remains a difficult question to answer. Not surprisingly therefore, this topic has been the focus of attention of multiple articles in the past twenty years of this journal. In this contribution, the inspiring article of Borbala Fellegi (2008), titled ‘Explaining the impact of restorative justice. The “4-way interaction” of morality, neutralisation, shame and bonds’ is celebrated. Fellegi presents a theoretical framework in which the added value of restorative, mediated victim-offender meetings for the re-integration of offenders is outlined compared to other judicial responses to crime. Central to her argument is that the mediation process affects in particular the four criminogenic factors mentioned in the title. In this contribution two innovative, working mechanisms of the mediation process that she proposes, are highlighted. First, the preparation phase in which the neutral mediator initiates and facilitates discussion of the crime and its consequences for the victim(s) with the offender. Fellegi proposes that this mechanism can (start to) lift the criminogenic factor moral reasoning of the offender. Second, the restorative focus of the encounter itself between the victim and offender, in which both parties can express how they were affected, express their emotions (such as shame feelings of the offender) and discuss jointly how restoration and reparation might be achieved. This should reduce the criminogenic factor neutralisation, increase moral reasoning, and might contribute to integrative social bonds between the parties and their networks. Thus, Fellegi’s work has made innovative suggestions about the working mechanisms of victim-offender mediation – these suggestions offer useful hypotheses that can be tested empirically.

‘The victim’ is an important figure in restorative justice, but who is this victim? In this article, I will review articles published in this journal between 2005 and 2019 in order to establish the characteristics of victims recognized in the field of restorative justice. It first needs to be noted that there is not one homogeneous victim group. The diversity in victims and their needs calls for research investigating when, for whom, and under which circumstances restorative justice practices lead to victim satisfaction. Many articles reviewed address this question. When I nevertheless try to extract an ideal type of victim of restorative justice, it seems that the victim is agentic and resilient, expresses a wide range of emotions, prioritizes reparation over punitive measures and is overall very satisfied with the restorative justice practice.

As an approach to law and justice, restorative justice focuses squarely on addressing human needs; it acknowledges the equal dignity of all parties, irrespective of their role in the harmful act; it accepts responsibilities for addressing the disadvantages or inequities that crime has bequeathed to victims and that often have contributed to offending on the part of the perpetrator; and it derives its creative potential from the shared vulnerability and reciprocal exchange of concern that occurs through respectful face-to-face encounter. Therefore restorative justice constitutes a relational justice of care.

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.