Although reward systems are utilized in prisons worldwide, evaluations regarding their intended use are lacking. This contribution reconstructs the policy theory of such a system: Promotion and Demotion, as implemented in Dutch prisons in 2014. With a policy scientific approach the intended target group, means, goals and causal mechanisms of the system were delineated. The policy theory assumes three means, ten goals and 24 causal mechanisms. The policy theory is insufficiently empirically substantiated on a number of points and takes limited account of (cognitively) impaired prisoners. This accurate reconstruction offers a unique insight into the assumed functioning of a part of Dutch detention policy and provides starting points for international considerations of behavioral change in detention.

This article is an analysis of about 350 decisions of Dutch criminal courts since mediation was introduced as an instrument in criminal law (art. 51h of the Dutch criminal code). It appears that mediation not only benefits the offender in terms of reduction of punishment, but also has significant effects on other aspects of the domain of criminal justice. For example on complaints about the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute a suspect, the eligibility of the Public Prosecutor in a criminal procedure, claims for compensation of the victim, compensation for damage of the offender being in preventive custody, and costs of the offender for a lawyer to defend him in a criminal procedure. Although much progress can be made in applying mediation in criminal procedures, it is concluded that mediation is now an important form of restorative justice in the Dutch criminal justice system.

This essay is a scientific reflection on Leuven Restorative City (LRC). The cities, which present themselves as ‘restorative cities’, aim to ensure that restoration continues to nestle in the capillaries of our society. The article argues that realizing the LRC-promise requires restorative thinking through the meso-level of local public life. This involves reference to a number of notions that can be traced back to Ancient Greek thought in Athens, in which the intellectual virtue of ­phronesis – practical wisdom in a social and political context – is central. Citizens are seen as allies in the solution of social issues. LRC contributes to this through its focus on ‘turning conflict into opportunities’. Restorative justice wisdom is more widely applicable in society. However, the LRC process can sometimes be erratic and unpredict­able. The article points to the possible alternation of good and bad periods, and puts forward the expectation that the development of restorative practices in Leuven can be understood as cascades. In these cascades, the course of the diffusion of restorative practices is presented in terms of successive waves of learning experi­ences and knowledge sharing.

In 1938, Nico (or Niko) Gunzburg founded the Institute of Criminology at Ghent University.
Because he was a professor of Jewish origin, Flemish-minded, a political liberal and a freemason, he became the victim, in 1940 and in 1941, of looting by the ‘Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg für die besetzten Gebiete’. Personal books, documents, art and archives concerning his lodge ‘Marnix van Sint Aldegonde’ were stolen from his house and transported to nazi-Germany. After the Second World War, almost the entire collection was found in the Moscow-Archive and subject to restitution.

This article deals with restorative justice practices in Surinam. It is based mainly on anthropological literature and preliminary research findings of four indigenous villages in Surinam, and is part of a broader study of Indigenous and Marron communities. In these villages the age-old customary law approach to conflict remains a lively practice, especially in the rainforests where central authority has little influence. The author highlights a number of restorative aspects of indigenous (criminal) justice practices, such as the group conferencing model of the Krutu and the role of the community (rehabilitation). Other aspects are not at all restorative, such as cases of double punishment (ne bis in idem), corporal punishment and the lack of the possibility of appeal. Because the trend of opening the hinterland seems to be unstoppable, it is recommended to coordinate national law and customary law and improve cooperation between indigenous and central authority. The article gives some suggestions for reforming the Surinamese Penal Code.

This article analyzes the opinion of twenty-four Surinamese ex-convicted young men on restorative justice. The results were obtained through four focus group sessions and a concise survey form. The factors (a) type of offense, (b) seriousness of offense and (c) prevention of recurrence were discussed. The opinions are divided, but the majority is of the opinion that restorative justice can mainly work for serious and violent crimes. Fear of revenge appears to be a barrier to participation. Employment has been indicated as the key to real recovery of the offender and prevention of recidivism (and thus satisfaction for the victim). The results provide insight into the susceptibility to restorative justice among this specific group in Suriname.

Criminological research has emphasized the importance of procedural justice of authorities during encounters with citizens. Theory and prior research propose that the procedurally just treatment by the police influences, possibly via legitimacy, citizens’ willingness to cooperate with authorities in the criminal justice chain. This article tests the hypotheses of procedural justice theory using Dutch data of the European Social Survey (N=1,616). The results show an association between the procedurally just treatment of citizens by the police and cooperation with criminal justice authorities. However, this association has not been explained by the legitimacy of the police.

Convict criminology draws from personal experience of imprisonment to offer critical criminological perspectives on punishment and prisons. In this article I discuss how some of these are aligned with questions of narrative and post-colonial perspectives in criminology. I use autoethnographic vignettes to communicate the experiences of imprisonment that inform the development of convict criminology, and I explore their relationship to narrative criminology’s interest in personal stories.

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.

Narrative criminology focuses on stories. It initially contrasted itself with standard approaches to interviewing. The founders of narrative criminology proposed that we understand that what the persons we investigate are telling us, as acting discursively and not as factual descriptions of events or accurate representations of their perspective. This critique I compare to previous critique on interviewing to show their overlap. Next, I critique these critiques. Finally, I propose several ways through which narratives in interviews can be enriched.

This article explores the intersection of two criminological perspectives—cultural criminology and narrative criminology. Taking inspiration from Mills and Fleetwood’s article, ‘Prepping and verstehen: A narrative criminological perspective’, where the authors contend that stories complement the pursuit of criminological verstehen, this article draws attention to other ways in which cultural criminology and narrative criminology are imbricated, taking notice of commonalities in cultural criminology’s analysis of media looping and narrative criminology’s identification of cycles of storytelling practice and lived experiences. A consideration of Donald Trump’s attempts to control narrative is used to develop an argument regarding cultural criminology’s and narrative criminology’s joint questioning of linear sequencing and mutual recognition of circulating fluidity

Sexually transgressive behavior occurs in all sections of society, including sports. That includes behavior from making sexual comments to rape. A risk factor is the culture that can prevail in sports, also known as a disruptive culture. There is normalization of deviant behavior. The top sport culture is particularly vulnerable to unacceptable behavior. In this article we will consider the phenomenon of grooming by the coach – the conscious and movement that induce the minor to engage in sexual contact. Within top sport, the opportunity for (sexually) transgressive behavior will be the determining factor. While grooming in recreational or recreational sport is often by isolating (vulnerable) children from the group, grooming can occur in top sport because of the intensity of the relationship, which is in any case of a more closed nature and can be strengthened by the strong performance-oriented top sport culture. In both cases, an alert, open environment is necessary to create a safe sports climate.

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.

Is the concept of ‘retribution’ compatible with restorative justice? Starting from the perspective that retribution is an imperative given and that restorative justice should be a preferent option in coping with crime, the concept of retribution needs to be redesigned. Rethinking retribution needs to take into account the hypersensitive nature and complexity of modern society. Apparently incompatible interests need to be reconciled, paying tribute to the citizenship of both the victim and the perpetrator. Notwithstanding censure to be in place, implying the infliction of ‘pain’, the aim must lie in a reconstruction of civil relationships affirming the victim and the perpetrator to be part of the community. Standards applied must reflect objectivity, implying proportionate punishment, with a preference towards restorative justice because it is the more subsidiary option. Thus, retribution notwithstanding the imperative and painful nature of retribution, the execution should pursue the reconstruction of (civil) relationships.

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?