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.

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.

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.

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.

Compared to victims, relatively little is known about the role of offenders’ emotions, needs and intentions in their (voluntary) decision to participate in victim-offender mediation (VOM). Insight into this decision process among offenders is important, as it may explain (part of) the positive outcomes participation in VOM can have for them, as well as for victims. Based on the work of Shnabel and Nadler (2008; 2015), we predicted that the need to restore their moral image is an important, underlying explanation for why offenders participate in VOM. To test this, we sampled 91 victim-offender mediation cases from the Dutch mediation agency Perpectief Herstelbemiddeling based on pre-defined characteristics. We approached the mediators who handled these cases and asked them to indicate the emotions, need to restore the moral image and intentions of the offenders in these cases. Consequently, we examined how these variables predicted offenders’ actual willingness to participate (or not) in these cases. Results indicated that the need to restore the moral image is indeed an important underlying factor in offenders’ decision to participate in VOM: according to mediators’ answers, offenders who felt more remorse about their crime, felt a stronger need to restore their moral image, which in turn predicted a stronger intention to apologize and help the victim. This intention to apologize and help emerged as the strongest, direct predictor of offenders’ willingness to participate. The relevance of Shnabel and Nadler’s needs-based model of reconciliation for VOM is discussed as well as important future research questions that remain.

A rapidly growing field of research and practice, restorative justice has primarily found its gravitational centre within the criminal justice system, as an alternative of dealing with the aftermath of crime. Less explored remains the application of restorative justice in complex, urban, or intercultural contexts, an application which raises a whole set of conceptual and practical challenges. This article is based on an action project which aimed to research conflict narratives in intercultural contexts and transform them through restorative praxis. Mostly used in educational, organizational, and health care settings, action research remains an underused but a highly interesting methodology for criminology and criminal justice research. Its alternative epistemology makes it particularly apt for scientific projects that aim both at investigating crime and justice related issues and at engendering change, either at the level of criminal justice or communities. Although action research has focused mostly on creating change at the level of practical knowledge, when conceived in a critical manner, action research aims not only at improving the work of practitioners, but also at assisting them to arrive at a critique of their social or work settings. Practice concerns at the same time problem setting or problem framing. By zooming into one of the case studies of the project, more specifically the social housing estates in Vienna, I focus in this article specifically on the tensions and dilemmas created by processes of engagement in a problematizing approach to the context and to practice. During these processes, together with other social actors, such as inhabitants and professionals, we named problems (in our case social conflicts) and framed the context in which we addressed them. I argue that participatory forms of inquiry, such as action research, should actively reframe rather than merely describe contexts and problems they work with.

In the past twenty-five years, a lot of attention is paid to a more victim-aware and restorative justice focused policy in prisons in Belgium and The Netherlands, striving for a restorative culture and climate in the institutions (among prisoners and staff) and for more restorative practices like victim-awareness programs and mediation. The focus is primarily on the prison structure and culture, striving to create a more restorative prison culture and climate in the institutions. In this article we argue for a shift from this system-focused pursuit of ‘estorative detention’ to the restorative reintegration of prisoners at the individual level, and by this supporting their desistance from crime. We present a conceptual framework for restorative reintegration in and outside prison as a strengths-based approach, with attention to the structural and individual elements that supports their desistance from crime.

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.

This article presents and critically discusses a new Recommendation on restorative justice (CM/Rec(2018)8) that was adopted on 3 October 2018 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This new regulation builds on the previous Recommendation No. R(99)19 on mediation in penal matters and recommends the governments of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe the adopt and implement the principles of restorative justice as described in the Appendix of the new Recommendation. These guidelines apply to national authorities and national agencies in general, and to judges, public prosecutors, police, prisons, probation, juvenile justice agencies, victim support services and restorative justice services in particular. The article presents the origins of the Recommendation, its contents and its meaning for restorative justice developments in Europe and beyond.

In a recent research study entitled Encountering ‘The Other’: Victim Offender Dialogue in Serious Crime the impact and outcomes for victims/survivors of meeting with the prisoner participants who had caused them harm were examined. In the vast majority of those cases, organised within the context of the Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP), forgiveness was offered by victims and received by offenders. This research, utilizing a qualitative multiple case study method, examined twenty-five randomly selected cases referred for victim/offender mediation over a 10-year period, in which victims/survivors, following a period of preparation, had participated in at least one day-long dialogue with their offenders facilitated by trained personnel. This article addresses only one of the research questions posited in this study, namely, the ways in which apology and forgiveness played a part in those dialogues and in the experience of the participants following their mutual encounters. It is argued that granting forgiveness can have great power in its effects when experienced by the participants.

This article discusses the willingness of the victim to judge the offender more mildly after the latter apologized for his wrongdoing and shows that he is involved in behavioral change. A large group of victims wants to help (young) perpetrators and offer them a second chance, even victims who have been treated violently. It is argued that these forms of compassion express a caring attitude, the wish that the offender will be rehabilitated and that a change in behaviour is more important than compensation. This attitude can also be referred to as ‘forbearance’, in terms that a less severe sanction is sufficient. This goodwill factor may well be the most important aspect of ‘doing justice’ in restorative meetings.

In this article the author discusses the book Anger and Forgiveness written by the well-known and influential American philosopher Martha Nussbaum. In the opinion of the author Anger and Forgiveness is a provocative and challenging book. In the book, Nussbaum makes a distinction between conditional and unconditional forgiveness, she relates conditional forgiveness to the logic of retribution and she disapproves retribution and, by extension, conditional forgiveness on moral grounds. Her disapproval of retribution and conditional forgiveness is related to her disapproval of (vindictive) anger, which in her opinion is intrinsic part of retribution and conditional forgiveness. According to Nussbaum, anger – transitional anger excluded – has to be replaced by unconditional love; only conduct that stems from unconditional love can be qualified as moral. Sometimes unconditional forgiveness can be seen as a form of unconditional love. Subsequently, Nussbaum applies her ideas on anger, retribution, forgiveness and love to the political domain, to which also criminal law belongs. Nussbaum pleads for a criminal law system empty of anger and retribution; in Nussbaum’s criminal law system there is only room for prevention, grace and human welfare – all stemming of unconditional love. Nussbaum’s Anger and Forgiveness offers an alternative view on concepts such as anger, retribution, forgiveness and love, concepts which are important within the context of criminal law and restorative justice. The author argues that, although the reader can certainly learn from Nussbaum’s ideas as explained in Anger and Forgiveness, the radicality of her ideas inevitably causes criticism; Nussbaum holds a very idealistic perspective that neglects the human condition. Instead of ruling out anger and retribution, the author advocates a criminal law system that is capable of canalizing anger and transforming vindictive anger into transitional anger. Furthermore, he pleads for a criminal law system that makes forgiveness possible without forcing victims to forgive. For that reason restorative justice practices need to be incorporated into the criminal law system. In sum, to a certain extent Nussbaum and Claessen share the same moral ideals, but they disagree on the path leading tot those ideals. Where Nussbaum opts for a top-down approach, Claessen opts for a bottom-up approach which respects the human condition.

The article provides a description of the issues and considerrations facing Flemish victim-offender mediators on the job. Instead of focusing on professinal risks and caveats present within victim-offender mediation, the authors concentrate on the positive concept of ‘enabling high quality mediations’. A description is given of the frames that are felt to be helpful towards mediators, stressing the need to act with due creativity if needed. Moreover, in order to enable high quality victim-offender mediations, conditions need to be met, more specifically a common acknowledgment of the need for teamwork. The latter implies conditions such a sound legal basis, a deontological code, formal procedures and constant interaction with practice.

The apologies offered by young offenders in restorative justice conferences are often of poor quality. In this article the difficulties that accompany the offering of excuses are discussed. Offenders sometimes lack the language skills to pronounce an adequate apology, are anxious or insecure or believe that they have not been treated fairly. The mediation setting itself also has effects: sometimes perpetrators feel intimidated and feel compelled to say something that resembles an excuse. A related problem is that the perceptions about the sincerity of the apology can vary considerably. This perception-mismatch also occurs among victims: what one victim considers sincere is ‘fake’ for another. Many people
– also advocates of restorative justice – trust that the offender will offer a sincere apology, without realizing that this is not self-evident in a thorny confrontation setting. This article aims to temper this sincerity-expectation.

The Halt-intervention is an extra-judicial intervention for young people who have committed a minor offense. This article zooms in on the results of a literature review concerning the efficacy of offering an apology, one of the core elements of the Halt-intervention. Offering an apology leads to more insight into the consequences of their behavior and it increases the sense of moral norms. Shame and guilt play a crucial role in this process. The effect of the excuse can be increased by good mediation between perpetrator and victim, good preparation of the conversation, and the drafting of a contract. These instructions can also be applied when offering an apology in other interventions.