The contribution informs about some of the activities and the philosophy of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, a non-governmental organisation for the care for prisoners, member of the Prison Fellowship International. Holding a person responsible for his or her criminal conduct does not only mean punishment, but also individualizing the person as a person, with his or her own life, history and future. The stay in prison should help the person to return into society as a citizen with an equal status, rehabilitated by his punishment. But social reality is far removed from this ideal. The volunteers of Gevangenenzorg Nederland try to bring closer a form or charitable justice, focussing not so much on the risks that a person may be perceived to pose, but much more on the healthy and socially positive talents of the detainee, against the background of the ‘good lives model’ of Ward and Maruna (2007). The article describes the workshop offered to detainees ‘Speaking of guilt, remorse, victims and society’, wherein participants can investigate and discover in a systematic way their own degree and type of guilt and responsibilities and the avenues that might be available to express remorse and to make amends with victims and society. Family members or other significant others are called in in the stage of concluding the course with presenting ‘restorative gestures’ of any personal kind. Care after leaving the prison is offered and planned, hoping to facilitate a fully rehabilitated reintegration into society.

This study revolves around the broad question: can religion prevent crime? In the first part the (possible) impact of religious faith on social behaviour (or the prevention of certain behaviours) is discussed. Respectively the following aspects are dealt with: religion as a source of activism, religion as protective factor to keep people from crime, and the impact of crime on tolerant or intolerant and forgiving or punitive attitudes. The second part deals with deliberately organized faith-based-interventions, intended to support and help inmates. The role of identity change via redemption narratives is examined, as well as the question how professionals and volunteers may stimulate rehabilitation and reintegration of (ex-)prisoners.

Responding to criticism, stating that constructive interventions can only be understood as proven to reduce recidivism, the author clarifies what she conceives as constructive answers to juvenile delinquency, against the background of the Belgian developments in law and policy. ‘Constructive’ has always implied the active participation of those citizens directly involved, care and attention for the victims needs, and the avoidance of placement in a closed institution. The contribution to the quality of social life by making restorative gestures was considered to be of importance.To measure whether conferencing with juveniles would work the criterion of reducing recidivism is important, but not exclusive. Other criteria, which come forward in qualitative research, are at least as important.The Dutch seem to take managerialism in the sense of implementing only what can be proven to work in a preconceived way – only in terms of reducing recidivism – much more seriously than the Belgians do.In Belgium the traditional stress on protection of juveniles has not changed, and the newly introduced family group conferences were accepted as valuable procedures. Reducing recidivism is however not unimportant and more and more RJ-research is addressing this issue. There are indications that recidivism can be reduced by conferencing procedures and their resolutions. Instead of technocratic managerialism one should be interested in the ‘moral performance’ of a legal system, looking for what really matters.

In this article the author summarizes the main arguments for and notions of a maximalist conception of restorative justice, as developed in his latest book: Restorative Justice, Self-interest and Responsible Citizenship.While using a rather limited, goal-oriented definition of RJ as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence’, Walgrave aims at developing a full blown alternative for penal justice. In the restorative system it should also be possible to impose sanctions, when deliberative processes of mediation and conferencing are not feasible, although the latter have, of course, the greatest chance of achieving restoration.The sanctions of restorative justice are not punishments, because any intention to impose suffering is lacking at the side of the sentencing authorities. But RJ can be seen as a form of inverted retributivism, in the sense that the offender pays his dues back to the victim and the society, to a degree that has to be acceptable to all involved, and seeking a fair amount of proportionality that does not impose unrealistic or unfair obligations. Principles of due process of law should be adapted to fit the restorative process. The high degree of participation in restorative justice serves democracy and so should criminology, by studying the ways in which social capital can be increased.The concept of ‘common self-interest’ is explained as the fundamental understanding that self-interests are best served by serving the common self-interest in as far as that provides full possibilities of deployment to everyone.

This article reports the findings of a series of interviews with a juvenile judge, a public prosecutor and a judge who operates during the administration of the prison sentence. Their role is inquired as this appears in the practices of victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and victim oriented initiatives during the implementation of the prison sentence. The interviews relate to developments in the Flemish and Brussels region of Belgium and took place against the background of previous findings from research and practice. First, the (legal) context in which public prosecutors and judges are entering into contact with restorative practices is presented. Their role in offering or starting up different types of mediation and conferencing are discussed into detail. Also, the way in which the victim can participate in the administration of the prison sentence is dealt with. As a next step, the role of public prosecutors and judges after mediation or conferencing has taken place is analysed. To which extent can or should they take the outcome of restorative or victim oriented practices into account in further decision making processes? Furthermore attention is given to the relevance and applicability of important restorative justice principles such as voluntary participation and confidentiality when the case goes through the criminal justice process. The article ends with some general evaluative findings on the attitudes and the support of legal professionals towards restorative justice and restorative practices.

This article sets the stage for the discussion on the role of legal professionals – lawyers and magistrates – in restorative practices. A common task they have is controlling the respect of fundamental rights of the participants in restorative justice practices. How important this task is, will vary according to different variables such as the goals of restorative justice programs and their position towards the criminal justice system. Lauwaert goes on to sketch in separate parts the possible roles of respectively magistrates and lawyers before, during and after mediation or conferences. She refers to the European legislative framework which foresees an important role for magistrates as gatekeepers and assessors of restorative outcomes and explores the strengths and problems these roles evoke. She refers to her own research to explore the attitudes of magistrates towards restorative practices. Concerning the role of lawyers, the European legislative framework is quite vague, and the article tries to analyse more in depth the possibilities and obstacles for lawyers to contribute to the quality of mediation. The lack of knowledge of and acquaintance with the world of restorative justice and mediation is detected as a serious obstacle for further development of this field of action.

In this article the author explores the role of the lawyer in one particular restorative practice in Flanders: mediation with adult offenders in the framework of the law of 22 June 2005. The author discusses the role the lawyers can play before, during and after the mediation. A striking fact is the extremely low number of references by lawyers to the mediation practice. As elsewhere in the literature, the role of the lawyer during the mediation is most under discussion, although it is clear that representation by the lawyer is not admitted.
Claes also describes the different attitudes mediators developed in actively involving lawyers, which vary from automatically contacting the lawyer of the parties to not contacting the lawyers at all. The motives behind these attitudes concern on the one hand the implementation of the right to legal assistance written in the law and on the other hand the empowerment of the parties and the concern to keep the conflict in the hands of the parties.
Finally, Claes shows how lawyers have been structurally involved in the mediation practice, for example as members of the steering committees of the local mediation services.

In Western languages those affected by crime are universally labelled as the sacrificed ones. This label is inspired by the suffering of Jesus Christ and evokes images of helplessness and meekness. It acts as hidden justification for the marginal, self-effacing role of victims in criminal procedure and restorative justice. The author argues for deconstruction of the stereotypical victim label and the creation of more space in criminal procedure for victims as autonomous parties. In his view the recent innovation in Dutch law of a limited Victim Impact Statement still gives victims insufficient voice. He also argues for a reconceptualisation of restorative justice practices as a supplement to the criminal trial rather than as a substitute.