Many articles have dealt with the question why restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) may or may not be appropriate. Seeing however as a punitive approach towards IPV is rapidly losing popularity as an effective way of dealing with this complex type of violence, as well as the outcomes of a recent study by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014) – where 25% of the Dutch women that were surveyed indicated they had experienced violence by an intimate partner – restorative justice may be a promising alternative after all.
Instead of adding to the debate, the current article focuses on how restorative justice can be constructed to be appropriate for IPV cases, and is explorative in nature. In order to do so, the theory behind transformative learning is combined with restorative justice practices, shifting the focus from ‘restoration’ to ‘restorative transformation’. Such a restorative transformative learning approach focuses on transforming violent meaning perspectives that dictate the use or toleration of violence. Instead of trying to restore the individual back to the state they were in before the violence took place – as ‘restoration’ traditionally implies – the goal of restorative transformative learning is to restore the individual back to a state before a violent meaning perspective was acquired. The transformation of violent meaning perspectives is therefore the prerequisite for restoration.
The method that is introduced in this article offers a practical framework and guidelines to achieve such a transformation. It answers to the complexity of IPV cases by focusing on the entire family system, while leaving room for individual restoration. In doing so, restorative transformative learning may possibly open the way to the acceptance of restorative justice in the field of IPV.

A debate exists in the literature about the question whether (different forms of) mediated contact between victims and offenders occur and are appropriate only after minor offenses. This contribution therefore examines whether a relationship exists between the seriousness of offenses and the degree to which in practice cases result in mediated contact, in the Dutch context. More specifically, we report the first findings of a study aimed to (a) examine the seriousness of cases that were registered at the foundation Slachtoffer in Beeld (Victim in Focus; responsible for the execution of mediated contacts between victims and offenders in the Netherlands), and (b) compare the seriousness of cases at this foundation that resulted in different forms of mediated contact (including cases in which no contact emerged). To this end, we sampled 200 cases from the data system of Victim in Focus in a random manner; consequently, the seriousness of each of these cases was coded. The mean duration of incarceration sentenced for specific offenses in the Netherlands was used as an (as objective as possible) indication of the seriousness of the offenses in these cases. The results indicated that the cases registered at Victim in Focus do not consist exclusively of minor offenses. A substantial part consists of more serious offenses, especially when this is compared to the prevalence of all (minor and serious) offenses in the Netherlands. In addition, we observed no relationship between the seriousness of cases and the form of mediated contact (or no contact) that emerged at Victim in Focus; mediated contact arose to the same degree for serious compared to minor offenses. The implications of these results for the debate mentioned above are discussed, taking into account the manner in which victim-offender mediation is organized in the Netherlands.

Since Islam stands for a total way of life, it also includes a vision on crime and punishment. According to several (Muslim)scholars the Sharia contains not so much a message of revenge and retribution but rather one of compassion, forgiveness and mercy. Much depends on which sections of the holy sources of Islam are read and subsequently how these sections are interpreted. However, fact is that – in the context of quite a number of criminal offences – Islamic criminal law gives room for restorative practices. These practices prove to be more beneficial with regard to the realization of remorse, forgiveness and reconciliation than the regular criminal process. Since restorative practices form an intrinsic part of (pre-modern) Islamic criminal law and since more and more initiatives are being developed nowadays to incorporate such practices in (modern) Western criminal law, it is of fundamental importance to take note of Islamic criminal law. Before focusing in this contribution on the role of restorative practices, remorse and forgiveness in Islamic criminal law, first the position of victims in criminal law under influence of Islam and Christianity will be discussed on the basis of the ideas of the Dutch victimologist Jan van Dijk. Furthermore, attention will be paid to the decline of mysticism in Islam and to the possible consequences and risks thereof – also for the role of restorative practices, remorse and forgiveness in Islamic criminal law.

Since 2005, Dutch victims of serious crime have the right to make an oral statement in court (‘spreekrecht’). In the past decade, the Dutch criminal justice system has accommodated this right to make an oral statement with regard to the consequences of the crime; no major problems have occurred. Indeed, only a minority of the victims consumes this right (ca. 230 cases annually), the majority prefers to lodge a written statement. Nevertheless, the Dutch legislature is of the opinion that the right to make an oral statement should be extended and has lodged a draft-proposal recently. The aim is to provide crime victims a right to put forward an advice to the judge at the trial session, such an advice relating to the full scheme of judicial decision-making (truth, legal qualification, punishment). Such a provision resembles a Victim Statement of Opinion, used in the American scheme of justice, and even exceeds this. The draft has been met with criticism, only the Dutch Victim Support is in favor. One of the objections heard is the one dimensional focus underlying the draft: by focusing on a specific group of victims – those who have suffered from serious crimes – the legislature neglects the heterogeneous nature of victims’ needs.

Restorative justice as well as restorative justice practices have mainly been researched from judicial and criminologist perspectives, whereas social work has been remarkably silent in the restorative justice debate. As a consequence, the role of social work in the restorative justice field remains largely unexplored. In this article we report the findings of two focus groups conducted with mediators working in juvenile and adult mediation practices in Flanders to gain more insight into how mediators perceive their role and to analyse to what extent they refer to the individual and structural dimension of victim-offender mediation.