Penal mediation is currently gaining ground within the Dutch criminal law system. The practice of penal mediation is still young, however, and therefore vulnerable. Common criminal practice as well as legislation are not yet thoroughly compatible with practicing penal mediation. The authors of this contribution explore some of the dangers mediators in penal cases face while drafting party-agreements that are to be taken into consideration by the judicial authorities.
The article identifies the responsibilities of penal mediators who at the same time serve the interests of victims and offenders as well as take into account expectations judicial authorities might have. The responsibility of penal mediators is especially delicate whenever mediation parties seek to influence the outcome of the criminal lawsuit through mediation. Criminal law is a highly-regulated field, which – albeit unconsciously – seduces the mediator his- or herself to lose track of the main restorative goals of the mediation process. The authors point out some of the traps penal mediators can and should avoid. The article for instance elaborates the inadequacy of current Dutch regulations to arrange financial compensations and damages through penal mediation. Also, the article enumerates examples of over-juridification as well as the lacking of it. Furthermore, avoidable pitfalls such as McDonald-icing of penal mediation, the uselessness of so-called sunny-weather-vouchers, the dangers of copy-paste-agreements and – the worst – putting the height of their own – currently fixed – fees above party interests, are being addressed.

The authors focus on the restorative justice policies of the city of Utrecht. The Utrecht Mediation Model is a framework in which so called Peaceful Schools and Peaceful Community organisations work together with inhabitants, youth, police officers, public prosecutors and mediators (both voluntary mediators and professional registered mediators). The authors discuss some of the benefits of this large-scale collaboration in Utrecht-neighbourhoods. The added value of the Model is especially felt in so-called Large and Xtra-Large community conflicts. The mediators work together with police officers in order to realise peaceful solutions, while safeguarding the autonomy and independence that both professions require. The authors also discuss some of the competences of the professionals involved. Finally they address the financial revenues of the Model; public spending is relocated from repressive to restorative strategies.

Utrecht, the fourth largest city of The Netherlands, is addressing resolving social conflict by promoting schools to adhere to the Peaceful School Program and civilians and professionals to join the Peaceful Neighborhood Program. The Peaceful School Program is designed to address problematic behavior of youth in primary, secondary and high school education and evolved into a democratic and participatory citizenship program. The Peaceful Neighborhood Program is involving important organizations that are active within the neighborhood, members of the community and stake-holders to adapt peaceful attitudes in daily life, including a mind-set that addresses conflicts by resolving them (together).
These two programs are in the process of ‘conquering’ the whole of the city of Utrecht and every single neighborhood. The so-called Utrecht Model for Mediation is supporting these Peaceful Programs, through empowering citizens and professional to enhance their ‘peaceful skills’ and skills for conflict resolution. Citizens and professionals are being trained to develop this mindset. The Utrecht Model for Mediation is organizing a community of mediators that can be of help. A pool of volunteer mediators is being formed to help organizations, professionals, parents, students and members of the community in case of problems, tensions, problematic behavior of youth groups, etcetera. Professional mediators intervene in case of escalated conflicts and penal cases.