The author illustrates the complexity of cases mediators are confronted with by using two exemplary cases. Sometimes legal issues deriving from family law, divorce law and criminal law all are disputed at the same time, frustrating and even blocking all parties including their legal counsels who are also part of the conflict-system. When a conflict-system becomes contaminated, often support systems are mobilised. If a mediator wants to play a role in sorting out the process – which is not his fundamental task – it is best to seek co-operation with the legal counsels.

In the Netherlands more and more criminal lawyers recognize the importance of Restorative Justice. The author illustrates this on the basis of several criminal cases in different phases of the criminal process. Under conditions Restorative Justice is of importance for all parties, including the suspect/offender. Criminal lawyers have to find the courage to overcome cold feet, so that they can fully meet the needs and interests of their clients.

Suspects are often much better off when they take responsibility for the harm they caused. They will accept their punishment more easily when also their side of the story is told and listened to. Not only they themselves, also their victim can benefit from this. Even when there is under circumstances no place for mediation in the pre-trial stage, also in the trial-stage people could come closer to each other. The counsel for the defense can play a coaching role in this process, that is not so much guided by classical principles of criminal law but much more by the experiences of the ones involved.

The author first describes the deontological axioma for the role of the defense counsel in the domain of criminal procedure. Since here the most serious charges are brought against a suspect, who may have all his life-perspectives to lose by severe punishments, the duty of the legal counsel is to be as one-sided in the defense of his clients views and interests as possible and as allowed by professional ethics. He is the guardian of the legitimate interests of the suspect in the context of a legal battle in or out of court about the legal truth of what is said to have happened. In view of the ideals of restorative justice (illustrated by references to Nils Christies Conflicts as property) a new set of rules and customs should be developed that can function as a framework of ‘restorative procedural law’. In the context of restorative justice legal counsel of both the suspect and the victim should be expected and able to function much more as ‘restorative coaches’, seeking co-operation and deliberation between all stakeholders. But, should clients – suspects and victims alike – decide against such an approach and want ‘their day in court’ this should also be possible and be realised. The independent courts should always remain the ultimate refuge for those seeking justice.

In Antwerp there is a strong involvement of lawyers in all mediations for minor suspects following. All minor suspects are automatically assigned a lawyer. In this article the author describes the current mediation procedure for minor suspects. Furthermore he gives some personal comments from his perspective as a mediator.

In this article the author gives insight in the tasks of a lawyer in mediation for minors. In the first part of his contribution he describes the legal framework, giving an overview of all relevant existing national and international legislation on children’s rights. Subsequently he describes the different tasks a lawyer has to attend in all stages of the mediation.

In his contribution the author points out that the right to legal assistance during police interrogations offers a wonderful opportunity to pay attention to the possibility of mediation and to ensure that the interrogating police officer abides Article 51h of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.

This contribution contains a response to the article of Vincent Geeraets included in this issue. Following the structure of Geeraets’ article this reflection consists of two parts: 1. Stories that deal with the origin of criminal law and restorative justice and 2. The perspective of the offender as someone who harms himself in the views of Duff and Claessen. In this contribution these parts are connected through the concepts ‘dialectics’ (ad 1) and ‘mysticism’ (ad 2) – i.e. concepts in which ‘Western’ respectively ‘Eastern’ Enlightenment seem to intertwine.

Adherents to restorative justice are to be commended for systematically questioning whether the manner in which criminal law is currently organised is a good thing. The debate about criminal justice and restorative justice is therefore an important one. It is also a debate which is occasionally marred by a reliance on ideology. In this article, a number of ideological claims are identified and discussed. First, both adherents to criminal law and supporters of restorative justice invoke an ‘origin story’ to defend their view. The origin story of criminal law consists of the idea that without criminal law the world would be a chaos, i.e. the world would resemble the state of nature as depicted by Hobbes. In contrast: the origin story of restorative justice revolves around the idea that without central authority people tend to resolve their conflicts harmoniously. I argue that neither types of origin story can withstand scrutiny. Secondly, in both the context of criminal law (e.g. Antony Duff) and restorative justice (e.g. Jacques Claessen), it is claimed that an individual by violating the rules harms himself as a person. The point of punishment (criminal justice) respectively reparation (restorative justice) therefore is to enable the offender to restore himself and to once again take up his role of citizen. I argue that the claim of self-harm may be based on a primitive worldview. Moreover, I show that this claim can be used to describe criminal law respectively restorative justice in terms that are too harmonious. In this way we lose sight of the coercion and violence that is involved in both contexts.