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).

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.

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.

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 this article the development of a restorative justice probation practice is discussed from the perspective of the restorative justice principle of the inclusive community and the contribution of probation volunteers to the reintegration of (ex-)offenders through specific restorative justice intervention strategies. It is shown that in penal policy of the past decades the penal welfare-model and the aim of reintegration of ex-offenders has been overshadowed by a more utilitarian, punitive and management logic of criminal justice. As a result, the reintegration and social inclusion of ex-offenders has become a rather neglected area and, in the current liberal-democratic state, offenders face social conditions in which it is very hard to turn their life around. In addition it is suggested that both in mainstream and in restorative justice interventions, achievement of the goal of reintegration is often problematic or absent. Moreover, this lack of opportunities for connection may undermine and reduce the effects of interventions, including those with a restorative justice approach. Probation services that use specific restorative justice intervention strategies guided by both professionals and probation volunteers might contribute to a more active, inclusive role of the community and society in the reintegration of ex-offenders.

The last years victim awareness has received special attention in the Dutch probation service. Three goals are central: respecting the rights and interests of the victim, mapping and increasing victim awareness of the probation client, and working towards the possibilities for recovery. Based on discussions with probation officers, this contribution sketches a picture of how this takes shape in practice. Experience shows that good results are achieved, but that more training and attention to the subject is needed to give it a full place in the probation work.

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.

This article is based on research into the use of mediation in criminal cases at ZSM Midden-Nederland. It focusses on the question how referrals to mediation can be optimized. The research shows that there is much room for improvement and a broader deployment of mediation. Lack of knowledge of the criminal justice partners involved, leads to misconceptions about the mediation process, about which institution should be deployed, and about the (in)suitability of cases for mediation. This lack of knowledge seems to be greatest among the police, while they play an important role within ZSM. Moreover, Victim Support Netherlands has a dominant role in the choice whether or not to refer to mediation. The overall conclusion is that mediation is not yet sufficiently anchored in the criminal justice partners’ system.

How does the police deal with conflict resolution and (referrals to) mediation? Is this perceived as relevant within the new national police organization? This article elaborates on work processes within the National Police, including ZSM-settlements, the punitive aspects of police culture and the impoverishment of neighborhood-oriented police work. It is concluded that there is little room within the police for responsive approaches to crime and social unsafety. However, there are still police professionals who question ‘assembly line’-processing of criminal cases, support restorative justice strategies and try to improve the citizen-empowerment in neighbourhoods.