Background: In 2018 the Council of Europe issued recommendations on parenthood and detention. However, children and their detained parents still are administratively and socially invisible within the Netherlands.
Method: We conducted a scoping review of the literature on the largest group of detained parents, namely fathers. The goal was to describe what we know about imprisoned fatherhood.We also wanted to determine the focus for follow-up research.
Results: The thematic analysis of the literature reveals four main themes in the research on imprisoned fatherhood . The content analysis results in four recommendations for follow-up research, including qualitative research with incarcerated fathers and their children.

In this article a framework is provided for the design and implementation of exit programmes used in prisons and by probation services. These programmes are targeted at violent extremist (ex-)offenders and are used for the purpose of deradicalisation or disengagement and support the successful reintegration of (ex-)offenders back into society. Based on a review of scientific and practice-oriented literature six categories of standards and practices are described. An exit programme needs to be tailored to the context in which it is used and to the risks and needs of the individual. In addition to various other aspects, earlier attention for reintegration and the active involvement of an (ex-)offender’s social environment are crucial in an exit progamme.

Naar aanleiding van een op 29 oktober 2021 verschenen RSJ-rapport (titel: Korte detenties nader bekeken) en een op 25 november 2021 door de RSJ georganiseerd online-congres inzake kortdurende detentie (titel: Kort, maar krachtig. Over de toekomst van korte detenties) schrijft Claessen een vervolg op zijn eerder in dit tijdschrift verschenen pleidooi voor de terugdringing van de korte gevangenisstraf (NTS 2021/40). In deze bijdrage gaat de auteur nader in op de volgende twee alternatieven voor kortdurende detentie: de taakstraf en thuisdetentie. Daarbij staan per alternatief de volgende drie vragen centraal: 1. Wat is op basis van de huidige wet- en regelgeving mogelijk en zit daar nog ruimte?; 2. Wat kan door middel van (relatief kleine) wijzigingen van de bestaande wet- en regelgeving nog meer mogelijk worden gemaakt?; en 3. Wat is de stip op de horizon bezien vanuit een maximalistisch herstelrecht?

Hate crime victims involved in a criminal procedure experience difficulties that are different from problems encountered by other victims. In trying to meet the specific procedural needs of hate crime victims many EU Member States have introduced protective measures and services in criminal proceedings, but the adopted approaches are widely disparate. By reporting the results of an EU-wide comparative survey into hate crime victims within national criminal procedures the authors aim to: (1) make an inventory of the national (legal) definitions of hate crime and the protection measures available (on paper) for hate crime victims; and (2) critically discuss certain national choices, inter alia by juxtaposing the procedural measures to the procedural needs of hate crime victims to see if there are any lacunae from a victimological perspective. The authors conclude that the Member States should consider expanding their current corpus of protection measures in order to address some of the victims’ most urgent needs.

Dit artikel bevat een pleidooi voor de terugdringing van de korte gevangenisstraf. De positieve effecten van deze straf wegen namelijk niet op tegen de negatieve effecten ervan. Daarom wordt gepleit voor een ruimere inzet van de herstelgerichte taakstraf en de invoering van herstelgerichte thuisdetentie. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat de recidive na een taakstraf of thuisdetentie significant lager ligt dan na een korte gevangenisstraf. Bovendien dient vanuit herstelrechtelijk perspectief de nadruk te liggen op actieve verantwoordelijkheid en omgekeerde vergelding: de dader dient iets goed te maken richting slachtoffer en gemeenschap en dat doet hij niet door in de cel te zitten.

This article critically examines the prospects of restorative justice in Brussels from the perspective of urban youth work. The insights issue from action research on the topic of ‘radicalisation’. The authors develop two arguments. The first tempers restorative optimism. It shows how restorative interventions are not necessarily the most adequate response to tensions and conflicts in urban settings. The second argument points out that resistance from urban youth workers regarding the implementation of restorative interventions should not be seen as a regrettable obstacle for academics who are eager to experiment with these interventions. Such a resistance can lead to new insights and fresh opportunities to radically rethink Restorative Justice. One of the ideas that the article brings to the surface comes down to this. In a city like Brussels, characterised by superdiversity, and clearly marked by social inequalities, academic researchers only gain credibility in initiating restorative interventions if they undeniably denounce these inequalities and fully express their engagement for social justice.

This article contains a plea for a further operationalization of the subsidiarity principle (penal law and punishment as ultimum remedium) through a maximalist restorative justice, i.e. a restorative justice that not only offers space for ‘voluntary processes’ and agreed restoration, but also for ‘compulsory procedures’ and imposed restoration. An attempt is made to make the maximalist arsenal of restorative sanctions as concrete as possible. Two examples of sanctions that are ‘constructed’ in a restorative way in this article, are restorative community service and restorative electronic home detention. This article is based on work by John Blad and Lode Walgrave that has previously appeared in Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht.

In this article, we report on our initial findings (from the field) regarding conflict resolution among the Maroons in Suriname. After first providing some background information about the Maroons (section 2), we describe their manner of conflict resolution after a crime has taken place and we explain what justice within this context entails for them (section 3). Subsequently, we try to distil ‘the useful elements’ from the Maroons’ approach to crime, that is to say elements with which modern restorative justice, i.e. restorative justice that meets, inter alia, human rights and constitutional requirements, can be nourished and strengthened. We also discuss some of the challenges we have encountered, where the traditional legal system and the modern criminal justice system come together (section 4). Then we try to build some possible bridges between the two legal systems (section 5). The contribution concludes with providing a window on the future of the development of restorative justice in Suriname and the Netherlands.

This contribution seeks to bring together three themes in a descriptive and exploratory manner: (a) community service orders, (b) traffic offences and (c) restorative justice; the Dutch situation is central. To this end, the Dutch legal regulation regarding community service orders is first explained. Attention is also paid to existing empirical research on the effectiveness of community service orders in terms of reduction of recidivism (section 2). Furthermore, the sanctioning of traffic offences is discussed as well as the consequences for this of the current bill that seeks to sharpen criminal liability for serious traffic offences (section 3). Subsequently, it is examined which restorative justice provisions or modalities are available and how restorative community service orders are and can be designed (section 4). Finally, I describe my ideal when it comes to the sanctioning of traffic offences in the form of a continuum in which a special role is reserved for restorative community service orders (section 5). The contribution ends with a conclusion (section 6).

In the past twenty-five years, a lot of attention is paid to a more victim-aware and restorative justice focused policy in prisons in Belgium and The Netherlands, striving for a restorative culture and climate in the institutions (among prisoners and staff) and for more restorative practices like victim-awareness programs and mediation. The focus is primarily on the prison structure and culture, striving to create a more restorative prison culture and climate in the institutions. In this article we argue for a shift from this system-focused pursuit of ‘estorative detention’ to the restorative reintegration of prisoners at the individual level, and by this supporting their desistance from crime. We present a conceptual framework for restorative reintegration in and outside prison as a strengths-based approach, with attention to the structural and individual elements that supports their desistance from crime.

In this article the author discusses the book Anger and Forgiveness written by the well-known and influential American philosopher Martha Nussbaum. In the opinion of the author Anger and Forgiveness is a provocative and challenging book. In the book, Nussbaum makes a distinction between conditional and unconditional forgiveness, she relates conditional forgiveness to the logic of retribution and she disapproves retribution and, by extension, conditional forgiveness on moral grounds. Her disapproval of retribution and conditional forgiveness is related to her disapproval of (vindictive) anger, which in her opinion is intrinsic part of retribution and conditional forgiveness. According to Nussbaum, anger – transitional anger excluded – has to be replaced by unconditional love; only conduct that stems from unconditional love can be qualified as moral. Sometimes unconditional forgiveness can be seen as a form of unconditional love. Subsequently, Nussbaum applies her ideas on anger, retribution, forgiveness and love to the political domain, to which also criminal law belongs. Nussbaum pleads for a criminal law system empty of anger and retribution; in Nussbaum’s criminal law system there is only room for prevention, grace and human welfare – all stemming of unconditional love. Nussbaum’s Anger and Forgiveness offers an alternative view on concepts such as anger, retribution, forgiveness and love, concepts which are important within the context of criminal law and restorative justice. The author argues that, although the reader can certainly learn from Nussbaum’s ideas as explained in Anger and Forgiveness, the radicality of her ideas inevitably causes criticism; Nussbaum holds a very idealistic perspective that neglects the human condition. Instead of ruling out anger and retribution, the author advocates a criminal law system that is capable of canalizing anger and transforming vindictive anger into transitional anger. Furthermore, he pleads for a criminal law system that makes forgiveness possible without forcing victims to forgive. For that reason restorative justice practices need to be incorporated into the criminal law system. In sum, to a certain extent Nussbaum and Claessen share the same moral ideals, but they disagree on the path leading tot those ideals. Where Nussbaum opts for a top-down approach, Claessen opts for a bottom-up approach which respects the human condition.

In deze bijdrage staat het herziene voorstel van wet centraal strekkende tot invoering van een nieuwe Titel – ‘Herstelrechtvoorzieningen’ – in het (nieuwe) Wetboek van Strafvordering. Het wetsvoorstel is in feite een ‘burgerinitiatiefwetsvoorstel’ en is geschreven door een initiatiefgroep bestaande uit medewerkers van de Universiteit Maastricht en restorative Justice Nederland in samenwerking met een denktank van vele professionals werkzaam in de strafrechtspraktijk, onder wie rechters, officieren van justitie, advocaten, mediators, politiemedewerkers en gevangenispersoneel. De auteur zet in deze bijdrage niet alleen de proeve van wetgeving uiteen, maar plaatst deze ook binnen een passende rechtshistorische context en voorziet haar voorts van zijn persoonlijke commentaar en visie.

Op basis van één casestudy van een wijkteam in Amersfoort gaat dit artikel in op de mate van juridische kennis van lokale sociale professionals over de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2015 (Wmo 2015). Ook komen knelpunten aanbod, die zij ervaren in de uitvoering van de juridische procedure. Als hulpverlener dienen ze de belangen van hun cliënt te behartigen. Tegelijkertijd bepalen ze als poortwachter, onder mandaat van de gemeente, wie in aanmerking komt voor een maatwerkvoorziening op basis van de Wmo 2015. Deze dubbele pet heeft onbedoelde consequenties voor geschillenbeslechting. Professionalisering is nodig om de kwaliteit van besluitvorming door sociale professionals te verbeteren en de rechtspositie van mensen met een beperking sterker te waarborgen.

Over the last twenty years, research on desistance from crime and on restorative justice has grown rapidly and both have emerged as exciting, vibrant, and dynamic areas of contemporary criminological interest. While the implementation of restorative justice practices in Europe has been essentially victim-oriented, there has always also been an emphasis on including the moral and social rehabilitation of the offender. This more offender-centred approach to restorative justice and its practices is not limited to the evaluation of its ability to reduce crime, but is to be seen within the connection between reparation, resettlement (reintegration into the community after sentence), and desistance from crime. This article examines, from a broad perspective, but including some data from research on victim-offender mediation in prison, the capacity of restorative justice interventions to impact positively on offenders’ likelihood of stopping committing criminal offences.