In this review-essay, two books by criminologist Lois Presser are discussed: Why We Harm (2013) and Inside Story: How Narratives Drive Mass Harm (2018). In these books the author develops a general theory of harmful action, in particular collective and massive forms of harmful action that are often related to state institutions and large companies. Presser shows that all kinds of stories, scripts and ideologies may justify, support, cover up or deny harmful action. In her publications, cultural sociology, critical criminology and discourse analysis are intimately intertwined.

Since the beginning of 2020 mediation in penal cases (mediation in strafzaken) has officially become the preferred intervention for victim-offender mediation in the criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Although mediation in general has a sound theoretical framework, the methodological elaboration appears pluriform and somewhat limited. In practice mediators in penal cases operate conform their own personal and professional standards and preferences, apparently without tailor made methodology. This article describes the current methodological directions such as transformative or narrative mediation and seeks for useful references. As a part of restorative practice, mediation in penal cases seems to remain secluded from insights and methodology developed in the domain of restorative justice practices. Educational institutes providing trainings for mediators barely refer to this theoretical framework. Besides a methodological reconnaissance this article offers a fundamental comparison of mediation styles and interventions, but is above all an incentive to further methodological research and development.

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.

This article contains a plea for a further operationalization of the subsidiarity principle (penal law and punishment as ultimum remedium) through a maximalist restorative justice, i.e. a restorative justice that not only offers space for ‘voluntary processes’ and agreed restoration, but also for ‘compulsory procedures’ and imposed restoration. An attempt is made to make the maximalist arsenal of restorative sanctions as concrete as possible. Two examples of sanctions that are ‘constructed’ in a restorative way in this article, are restorative community service and restorative electronic home detention. This article is based on work by John Blad and Lode Walgrave that has previously appeared in Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht.

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.

This article states that the social and political context in which restorative justice is situated, needs more attention. The polarized rhetoric of populists with their plea for more state control and repression does not fit with the restorative approach with its emphasis on inclusion and social responsibility of active citizens. The author suggests that the paradigm of ‘positive security’ as coined by Marc Schuilenburg and others could function as a base for an alternative, more constructive and inclusive ‘big story’ on crime and security that is more akin to restorative justice. Aspects of current social protest movements as the MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter and climate demonstrations could be integrated in this ‘big story’, also to prevent that restorative justice is viewed only as a quick fix to soothe symptoms and not address political and social root causes of injustice. In this way, the international restorative justice movement could widen its scope.

This essay focuses on John Blad’s views on the sanction concept of restorative justice and the punishment concept of criminal law. What is the status of a restorative sanction? How does that sanction differ from imposed criminal sanctions?

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.

In the current study it was investigated to what extent the presence or absence of victim compensation influences public judgments about punishment by the general public. Results show that whether or not the victim is awarded compensation, both in the case of physical assault and burglary, did not influence the extent to which the general public agrees with the punishment imposed by the judge. Participants do consider it important that a victim has the opportunity to apply for compensation for non-material damage suffered.

This contribution seeks to bring together three themes in a descriptive and exploratory manner: (a) community service orders, (b) traffic offences and (c) restorative justice; the Dutch situation is central. To this end, the Dutch legal regulation regarding community service orders is first explained. Attention is also paid to existing empirical research on the effectiveness of community service orders in terms of reduction of recidivism (section 2). Furthermore, the sanctioning of traffic offences is discussed as well as the consequences for this of the current bill that seeks to sharpen criminal liability for serious traffic offences (section 3). Subsequently, it is examined which restorative justice provisions or modalities are available and how restorative community service orders are and can be designed (section 4). Finally, I describe my ideal when it comes to the sanctioning of traffic offences in the form of a continuum in which a special role is reserved for restorative community service orders (section 5). The contribution ends with a conclusion (section 6).