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.

In this article, the authors summarize some important methodological problems that may be encountered when studying the crime preventative effects of restorative justice. Studies mostly focus on tertiary preventative effects, namely the reduction of recidivism. Empirical research is in that regard mainly dealing with the effects of victim-offender mediation and conferencing practices. Some problems include the definitional issue (what can be considered as a restorative justice intervention?), the (quasi-)experimental design, the small size of samples and issues of comparability between different studies due to differences in e.g. follow-period or criteria for measuring recidivism.

This article addresses the question whether restorative justice is embedded in the current policy and legal frameworks on crime prevention in several EU member states. Crime prevention is defined as all actions that are aimed to prevent involvement in crime (thus more than prevent re-offending only). Of course, the situation differs among the EU member states, but there is a growing awareness that restorative justice can play an important role in the prevention of crime, and is especially useful to meet the interests of victim and offender. Concerning the situation in the Netherlands, there are some promising developments and initiatives in which restorative justice approaches are advocated, for instance by a recent advice to the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Safety and Justice, in which restorative justice interventions are proposed within the juvenile justice system. Another relevant initiative is the joint effort to explore the boundaries of the Dutch diversion ‘Halt’ programme in order to apply this form of restorative practice more often, because of its estimated positive effects on victim and offender.

On the basis of current definitions and approaches of restorative justice and crime prevention, and making use of a two-dimensional typology of crime prevention, this article develops a conceptual framework and seeks to offer points of connections and departure at the theoretical level between restorative justice practices and different models of offender-oriented, victim-oriented and community-oriented prevention. In order to face some of the present limitations of restorative justice, in particular the missing link to causes of crime at the societal-structural level, the author widens the perspective of restorative justice to the broader notion of ‘community justice’. The challenge for restorative justice is, then, to integrate polycentric problem-solving approaches into its operational models.

Restorative justice focuses on doing justice after the occurrence of an offence. It gives priority to deliberative encounters as the best way of achieving restoration. The ambition of the maximalist option of restorative justice is to modify the punitive apriorism in criminal justice into a restorative apriorism. One of the challenges is to unravel the socio-ethical and political intuitions that orient the option for restorative justice. Restorative justice is first of all an option based on socio-ethical considerations: aiming at restoration instead of accepting the punitive premise, and giving full space for deliberation processes among stakeholders instead of imposing a top down decision procedure. These social ethical grounds of restorative justice have a potential contribution to improving the quality of our democracies.

This article gives a complete and detailed overview of research evaluations and outcomes of restorative justice projects in the Netherlands over the past decades. It involves developments where clearly restorative justice inspiration was visible. The author describes restorative practices with juveniles and the so-called project ‘Herstelbemiddeling’ (restorative mediation) that started in the nineties. Most evaluations had positive outcomes, but nevertheless there was no continuation from the political side. The author also examines the introduction of the country wide ‘victim-offender conversations’ which are carried out by the national victim support organization. Although this choice is justified because of the vulnerability of some victims and the chance of revictimisation, the author questions if victim organizations can really - in the best interests of the victims – turn away from problems related to the (hardened) treatment of offenders. Victim-offender conversations are to be respected and to be continued, but they cannot be seen as a restorative justice practice.

In a column a journal editor or an author expresses his or her opinion on a particular subject.

In this article, the author evaluates whether the development of restorative justice in Belgium over the past ten years offers an opportunity to ‘celebrate’, as the Journal for Restorative Justice does. Developments in practice show that mediation is available at all stages of the judicial procedure for adult offenders and mediation and conferencing are available according to youth law. Research has been carried out on various topics, covering a variety of practices. Furthermore, it has elaborated the concept of restorative justice, inspired innovative practices and influenced policy-making. Belgium seems to be peculiar in the relation between practice, research and policy, which tend to influence one another. Compared to the Netherlands, Belgium does have more reasons to celebrate the development of restorative justice.

Hans Boutellier is giving a panoramic overview of important changes in society. As worked out in his recent book De improvisatiemaatschappij (The improvisation society) he describes that society has evaluated into a network society in which social ordering is primarily a matter of self-organizing mechanisms. The aim for self-ordering would be a possibility for a further growth of restorative practices, but at the same time we are dealing with a penal-populist culture. In that culture citizenship, dialogue and self-ordering are suspect and – paradoxically – safety is expected to be delivered only by the state.

This contribution aims to understand the right things when doing justice. Restorative justice is an approach to crime that, properly pursued, focuses not merely on the lawbreaking behaviour of the offender but also on the effect of that behaviour on victims and communities. Restorative justice seeks accountability on the part of offenders in such a way that the harm done can be addressed and repaired to the extent possible. Restorative justice allows the parties to a crime to participate directly and voluntarily in considering the harm and fashioning a resolution that addresses that harm. It is also important that the right thing about restorative justice and about democracy be understood. Crucial is respectful dialogue during which people who disagree listen to one another, speak from the heart and mind, identify common values, recognize the importance of the others, and work toward a common solution.