‘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.

Whereas the starting point of victimisation is clearly marked by a co-occurence of harm and wrong, the end of victimhood is not as straightforward. What is more, because victimisation is a social construct, the label of ‘victim’ is established in social interaction, meaning that third party observers have a role in the understanding of the (limits of) victimisation. In this article, I suggest that third party observers may understand attempts at restorative justice, more specifically, an apology, as an indicator of recovery of the victim. If this is true, they may expect the victim to decrease emotional display that signals victimisation after receiving an apology. If the victim continues to display similar signals of victimisation, this may result in negative victim-oriented responses. In an exploratory repeated measures vignette study, I show that third party observers evaluate the victim less positively after the victim received an apology than before they received this apology. The results imply that in understanding the (limits of) victimhood, we should consider the dynamics between victim and offender but also a broader circle of third-party observers. This is also important for restorative justice.

The authors discuss reparations, with particular attention to programs launched to do justice to the victims of the Holocaust. While focusing on the compensation scheme of the Dutch Railways to the victims of the transports during the Second World War, they examine in which respects the suffering and victimization of some victim groups are not or insufficiently recognized. They compare the establishment of the compensation scheme and the procedure for repayment with findings from victimological research into the recognition of victimization and reparation, including the symbolic value of compensation, recognition of suffering, inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders, and victim participation. The analysis concludes with a few considerations about how secondary victimization could have been prevented.

In recent years, measures have been taken to involve victims in the Netherlands more in the criminal proceedings of their offenses. This development, has led the three Dutch probation organizations (together 3RO) to aim for a more victim focused and restorative oriented approach with their clients. Two reports have been written to aid this victim-oriented approach within probation services. This contribution reflects on these reports and provides additions based on scientific literature. Both reports offer a good overview of existing practices and approaches to work in a more victim focused and restorative way, which can help to increase awareness among probation workers. The additions concern research about the positive outcomes of organizing contact between offenders and victims from unrelated crimes and new research findings concerning the role of feelings of guilt and shame. In addition, consciously talking and acknowledging clients’ victimization is presented as an essential mechanism to create willingness among them to consider the experiences of (their) victims, especially for those who are initially unwilling to do so.

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.

In this article the authors focus upon the measures taken as a reaction against scientific fraud against the background of the contemporary science policy that turns the practice of science into a knowledge economy. In the light of the availability but obvious underuse of reactive legal means, they question the recourse to proactive ethical control and regulation of the scientific activities. They contend that such science policy is not so much the expression of a reaction against exceptional cases of scientific fraud, than of an endeavour to discipline and control scientist to the constraints of the knowledge economy. For the authors, however, the latter is the problem to be solved: another science policy is needed.

Against the background of a discussion of classical and modern concepts of punishment, the first implying the imposition of suffering as essence and the second encompassing all varieties of sanctions implying restrictions but not necessarily some form of suffering the author rejects the suggestion of the second concept, that punishment should be defined without any reference to imposing suffering. There are conceptual advantages to sticking to the classical definition of punishment, such as the fact that it is clearly differentiated from the concept of measurements, which are sanctions imposed without any demand of ‘guilt’ on the side of a perpetrator. Also there are good reasons to maintain the element of (imposition of ) ‘intended pain’ in the concept of punishment, but it is this element – the intentional imposition of pain and suffering – that makes the author reject the activity of punishing as unethical. Non-violent sanctions are conceivable and feasible and should on ethical grounds be preferred. This is explored with reference to the work of Tähtinen. In close connection with this idea the author argues that we should redefine criminal justice (in the Dutch language: ‘strafrecht’ meaning the right to punish and laws regarding punishment) to mean that it is the discipline that responds to crimes and offences, without any defining reference to punishment (‘misdaadrecht’, meaning the laws regarding ((responding to)) crime).

This article aims at grounding and defining the role of volunteers in restorative justice practices. It starts from the observation that processes of institutionalization tend to make the role of volunteering citizens in restorative justice programmes doubtful and superfluous. These doubts are strengthened by the fact that the link between restorative justice values and the importance of working with volunteers is too easily assumed. Can we offer some well-founded arguments to back up this assumption and to outline what key roles volunteers can play? Several conceptions of restorative justice might be explored. This contribution examines the maximalist view, as developed by Lode Walgrave in his latest book Restorative Justice, Self-interest and Responsible Citizenship. The article critically asks if and how his conception demands an active role for volunteers within restorative justice practices. The paper develops its arguments on the basis of three key concepts in Walgraves model: (1) his definition of restorative justice; (2) his notion of crime; and (3) his socio-ethical intuition of common self-interest.

This article departs from a crime prevention perspective following the definition of crime prevention as adopted by the European Union Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN). This approach handles a broad notion of community involvement in crime prevention, including non-judicial measures and models of intervention. Through its participatory approaches, restorative justice has the potential of mobilising and reinforcing social capital and, therefore, of contributing to effective crime prevention and control. The community oriented approach is illustrated by the model of crime prevention and its possible connection to restorative justice as being developed in Hungary and promoted through various actions of the EUCPN.

Public safety governance has been characterised in many ways. Literature mentions traditional sanctions for purposes of repression, policy programs aiming for prevention, as well as cooperation of public, private and hybrid organizations in addressing public safety problems. Very recently, a so called culture of precaution, in which problems of public safety are to be addressed at a very early – premature – stage, would have entered the scene. This potential culture of precaution is topic of this article. The article aims to indicate the empirical manifestations of a culture of precaution, as mentioned in literature, in contemporary public safety governance. The central question is as follows: to what extent and in what way is contemporary public safety governance on municipality level characterised by the precautionary principle? Five municipalities within the police region of Utrecht, varying in size from 40.000 to 300.000 citizens, have been studied; Amersfoort, Bunschoten, Utrecht, Woerden and Zeist. In total 153 measures addressing problems of public safety have been analyzed for characteristics of precaution. In order to do so, a model has been developed which locates precaution next to traditional strategies for addressing public safety. It will be demonstrated that a culture of precaution is not empirically present in public safety governance on municipality level. However, contemporary public safety governance does appear to posses some minor characteristics of the precaution paradigm.

This contribution starts with an introduction of human rights, children’s rights and restorative justice. What are the links and differences between these concepts and how do they interrelate? An overview of human rights for children in international standards relevant to the discussion on juvenile justice, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and additional instruments, is given. It is examined how restorative justice fits in this framework.
Human rights are one of the main pillars of our modern society. General juvenile justice principles such as diversion, the use of detention only as a measure of last resort and focusing on re-integration give a clear basis for restorative justice practice. Recent international and European conventions, guidelines and recommendations dealing with juvenile justice explicitly recommend the use of restorative justice. It is actually seen as the main priority focus of the reaction to youth criminality. The Committee on the Rights of the Child declared in General Comment 10 that the best interests of the child imply that the traditional aims of criminal justice – repression and retribution – should make room for rehabilitation and reintegration. Today’s focus on youth delinquency should be a restorative one. But how to implement rather broad notions such as restorative justice in individual cases and to make them fulfil internationally accepted human rights standards. With the model of Mitchell and Moore it is explored how children’s rights (mainly article 40 and the main principles of the CRC) and restorative justice are connected and how they can use each other. The need is stressed and some tools are given to work towards a ‘rights based restorative justice’.

Just over thirty years ago now, on 12^th January 1977 to be precise, Sir Anthony Bottoms presented his Inaugural Lecture as Professor of Criminology at the University of Sheffield, UK. The full text of this almost prophetic Lecture was subsequently published in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice and reached a much wider audience. One of its central themes was the emerging tendency within British criminal justice policy to treat really serious offenders in a significantly different manner from their less serious counterparts with whom a more lenient approach might be justified. This tendency he described as penal bifurcation.There were two reasons why such an apparently logical approach might be found exceptionable: the first relates to the general principal of treating like cases similarly, and the second that the practice was proposed on the basis of the relative extent of social risk that might be claimed to differentiate serious from less serious offending. Bifurcation in both of these forms is evident in the use within some jurisdictions of extended and indeterminate sentences for public protection, and in many respects also within parole release considerations.The central proposition in relation to bifurcation within this article is, however, of a somewhat different nature. Restorative justice places considerable reliance upon offenders accepting responsibility for their offences, showing remorse for the harm done to victims in the form of genuine apology, and then making reparation either to the victim(s) directly, or to victims of crime more generally. These principles apply equally to serious and less serious offenders, though the extent of reparation should logically be greater as the crime increases in gravity.In an era of widely increasing penal populations it is apparent that these escalations result from increased severity of sentencing on the one hand, and from wider use of custody and lower thresholds for imposing it on the other. Both forms of resort to custody in sentencing are increasingly justified on the basis of public protection, and to act otherwise is perceived (and often promoted in the media) as being ‘soft on crime’. Politicians anxious to retain electoral credibility do not wish to be labelled as soft on crime, and actively seek to avoid such accusations by supporting increasingly punitive measures against offenders.One of the reasons why restorative justice has attracted only limited acceptance in the world of adult criminal justice is that it is perceived as a less punitive response to offending than the more traditional retributive punishment mode or its ‘justice model’ desert-based counterpart. In the span of this article I shall attempt to describe how, with a respectable measure of bifurcation, a model of reparative and restorative justice can be presented as a viable and optimistic alternative to the penal politics of retributive punishment and social protection. That it might bring with it the potential for reduced use of custody will be left to the reader to decide.