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.

Based on a literature research and program evaluation of the practice of Victim in Focus (Slachtoffer in Beeld) in 2013, two issues are addressed: What are the possible effects of victim offender mediation? Which active mechanisms will cause or contribute to these effects? The authors describe the current context and developments in The Netherlands concerning restorative justice and then describe the effects and possible active mechanisms such as satisfaction, diminishing fear, anger and shame, information and consent, procedural justice, reduction of recidivism, compliance. In a synthesis of active mechanisms they present four domains or mediating factors: from incomprehension to comprehension (cognitive restoration); from unease to ease (emotional restoration); from injustice to justice (moral restoration); from powerless to powerful feelings (restoration of control). The victim offender mediation as a ritual has an impact or is supposed to have an impact on these four domains for both victims and offenders. Within the four domains four activities or interactions within victim offender mediation are presented: creating understanding through inter-subjectivity; expression of fear, trauma and shame; doing justice by excuses/apologies and restorative actions; regaining self control. Further research is needed to validate the model and to get more insight in essential or primary and secondary aspects in the explanation of the impacts of victim offender mediation.

While most restorative justice research would suggest that victims and offenders are often satisfied with their experiences, the number of referrals to these type of programs remain low. This lack of accessibility was the topic of the European Forum for Restorative Justice project, ‘Accessibility and Initiation of Restorative Justice’. This article reports on the project’s findings with regard to several factors which limit greater accessibility, as supported by the attitudes of referral bodies and restorative justice practitioners examined in the frame of this project. The results of previous research and the current empirical research illustrate how accessibility is hindered by (1) lacking or insufficient restorative justice legislation, (2) exclusion criteria regarding which cases may be suitable to restorative justice procedures, (3) a lack of knowledge among legal actors, restorative justice practitioners and the general public about restorative justice and its benefits, (4) the persistence of a retributive legal culture within criminal justice and (5) a need for greater cooperation among those who are involved whether as referral bodies or mediators or facilitators. Qualitative data is presented to provide a better understanding of these elements, in addition to potential solutions that were reported by the respondents. Furthermore, the authors take a closer look at the current situation in the Netherlands, including an overview of the trainings that were developed within the Accessibility project. The results of these trainings reinforce the factors that were identified by previous research and the current empirical research, and aimed to look for solutions to the main barriers to greater accessibility.

In this article we describe the mediation practice that exists at the prosecution office in Maastricht/Limburg and which was established in 1999. First, we summarize the main results of our earlier study on the relation between mediation and recidivism/reoffending rates on the basis of the Maastricht mediation model. In the remaining part of this article, we focus on answering the question whether the main results of our earlier study differ when we distinguish between adult (23 years and older) and juvenile (under 23 years) offenders. In order to answer this question several extra analyses have been carried out. The main conclusion of this article is that offenders with whom is mediated, reoffend significantly less than offenders who got a regular criminal sanction – regardless of whether the offenders are older or younger than 23 years.

This article studies the position of young victims in restorative justice and mediation. First we study the literature, which shows that although young victims may have specific needs, their position within restorative justice remains underexposed. Therefore, we have set up a small explorative study in the beginning of 2015. Through nine interviews with young victims who have gone through a mediation process in Flanders, we sought to answer three central questions. The article discusses whether these victims were satisfied with the mediation process, whether they could have a say in the process and what the importance was of having support persons throughout the mediation process.
We found that the participation of the parents does influence the mediation process, since the parents are the main support persons for the young victim. Other support people are seldom present in the process, although some victims wanted the school or a friend to participate. Most of the young victims found they had a say in the process, but the presence of the parents could be an impediment in that regard. Young victims interviewed were generally satisfied with the mediator and mediation process, but not always with the outcome of the mediation. Ensuring that these young victims really get a say in the process proved to be a point of attention for practice.

This article stems from a practice-oriented research on restorative justice and perceptions of conflict in a poor neighbourhood in Brussels: the Anneessens district. The first part of the article focuses on the conceptual shift from a crime-oriented towards a conflict-oriented restorative justice, including the search for a user-friendly working definition of ‘conflict’. The classical restorative justice story receives a facelift in order to address metropolitan challenges. The second part analyses 41 walking interviews of residents, focusing on conflict themes and zones. The third part cautiously checks the working definition in the frame of the analysed data. A provisional conclusion entails that the notion of crime and its related meanings should not be discarded too quickly.

Intercultural communication is often portrayed as communication between people with a different ethnic or national background. People may interpret differences and misunderstandings arising in communication as especially grand and problematic. Sometimes, people see the reason for a difference in opinion or the conflict to be situated within the other (often national or ethnic) culture. They see themselves and others as a member of a different group, with a different culture and thus claim the differences to be related to the culture and not the individual person (culturalising or culturistic approach). This approach entails certain risks when it is seen as a condition to be able to speak to others and when handled as the sole frame of reference to interpret people’s meaning-making. An alternative approach can be found in a systemic and communication-theory approach, linking it to intersectionality, pluralism, diversity competence and the TOPOI model, as this article explains.

This article describes the European research project ALTERNATIVE, which studies the possible implementation of restorative justice approaches in intercultural conflicts. Besides theoretical research into concepts such as justice, security, conflict (transformation) and restorative justice, action-research was implemented in four diverse intercultural settings (Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Northern Ireland). In order to compare those settings, an innovative comparative research method was developed through which the various realities are ‘thickly described’ within evaluation grids. The article describes the different aspects of the research and reflects upon the question whether a more broad understanding of restorative justice, surpassing the judicial sector and aspects, is emerging.