There is a natural alliance between the ambitions of prison chaplaincy and those of restorative justice in the sense that in both approaches (coping with) responsibility and guilt by offenders are important issues and mechanisms at the same time. Both share a relational concept of crime, consider the evil deed as occasion to start a dialogue to examine responsibility, stress the importance of process and bi-lateral partiality with both the victim and the offender. Coping with guilt and making it productive requires that communication with the offender reaches the deeper and more intimate levels of giving meaning to the criminal offence committed, self, others, past and future. For this communication the context should be open and fundamentally loving in a Christian sense, leading the way to a liberation from guilt once it is thoroughly known and accepted. At that point guilt can be transformed into a constructive moral impetus in human relations.

In an editorial article the editors supply a commentary on the topics covered in the journal.

The contribution informs about some of the activities and the philosophy of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, a non-governmental organisation for the care for prisoners, member of the Prison Fellowship International. Holding a person responsible for his or her criminal conduct does not only mean punishment, but also individualizing the person as a person, with his or her own life, history and future. The stay in prison should help the person to return into society as a citizen with an equal status, rehabilitated by his punishment. But social reality is far removed from this ideal. The volunteers of Gevangenenzorg Nederland try to bring closer a form or charitable justice, focussing not so much on the risks that a person may be perceived to pose, but much more on the healthy and socially positive talents of the detainee, against the background of the ‘good lives model’ of Ward and Maruna (2007). The article describes the workshop offered to detainees ‘Speaking of guilt, remorse, victims and society’, wherein participants can investigate and discover in a systematic way their own degree and type of guilt and responsibilities and the avenues that might be available to express remorse and to make amends with victims and society. Family members or other significant others are called in in the stage of concluding the course with presenting ‘restorative gestures’ of any personal kind. Care after leaving the prison is offered and planned, hoping to facilitate a fully rehabilitated reintegration into society.

This study revolves around the broad question: can religion prevent crime? In the first part the (possible) impact of religious faith on social behaviour (or the prevention of certain behaviours) is discussed. Respectively the following aspects are dealt with: religion as a source of activism, religion as protective factor to keep people from crime, and the impact of crime on tolerant or intolerant and forgiving or punitive attitudes. The second part deals with deliberately organized faith-based-interventions, intended to support and help inmates. The role of identity change via redemption narratives is examined, as well as the question how professionals and volunteers may stimulate rehabilitation and reintegration of (ex-)prisoners.

In een column geeft een redacteur of auteur zijn of haar visie op een bepaald onderwerp.

Responding to criticism, stating that constructive interventions can only be understood as proven to reduce recidivism, the author clarifies what she conceives as constructive answers to juvenile delinquency, against the background of the Belgian developments in law and policy. ‘Constructive’ has always implied the active participation of those citizens directly involved, care and attention for the victims needs, and the avoidance of placement in a closed institution. The contribution to the quality of social life by making restorative gestures was considered to be of importance.To measure whether conferencing with juveniles would work the criterion of reducing recidivism is important, but not exclusive. Other criteria, which come forward in qualitative research, are at least as important.The Dutch seem to take managerialism in the sense of implementing only what can be proven to work in a preconceived way – only in terms of reducing recidivism – much more seriously than the Belgians do.In Belgium the traditional stress on protection of juveniles has not changed, and the newly introduced family group conferences were accepted as valuable procedures. Reducing recidivism is however not unimportant and more and more RJ-research is addressing this issue. There are indications that recidivism can be reduced by conferencing procedures and their resolutions. Instead of technocratic managerialism one should be interested in the ‘moral performance’ of a legal system, looking for what really matters.

In een redactioneel artikel geeft de redactie een toelichting op het tijdschriftnummer in kwestie.

In this article the author summarizes the main arguments for and notions of a maximalist conception of restorative justice, as developed in his latest book: Restorative Justice, Self-interest and Responsible Citizenship.While using a rather limited, goal-oriented definition of RJ as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence’, Walgrave aims at developing a full blown alternative for penal justice. In the restorative system it should also be possible to impose sanctions, when deliberative processes of mediation and conferencing are not feasible, although the latter have, of course, the greatest chance of achieving restoration.The sanctions of restorative justice are not punishments, because any intention to impose suffering is lacking at the side of the sentencing authorities. But RJ can be seen as a form of inverted retributivism, in the sense that the offender pays his dues back to the victim and the society, to a degree that has to be acceptable to all involved, and seeking a fair amount of proportionality that does not impose unrealistic or unfair obligations. Principles of due process of law should be adapted to fit the restorative process. The high degree of participation in restorative justice serves democracy and so should criminology, by studying the ways in which social capital can be increased.The concept of ‘common self-interest’ is explained as the fundamental understanding that self-interests are best served by serving the common self-interest in as far as that provides full possibilities of deployment to everyone.

In een column geeft een redacteur of auteur zijn of haar visie op een bepaald onderwerp.

This article reports the findings of a series of interviews with a juvenile judge, a public prosecutor and a judge who operates during the administration of the prison sentence. Their role is inquired as this appears in the practices of victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and victim oriented initiatives during the implementation of the prison sentence. The interviews relate to developments in the Flemish and Brussels region of Belgium and took place against the background of previous findings from research and practice. First, the (legal) context in which public prosecutors and judges are entering into contact with restorative practices is presented. Their role in offering or starting up different types of mediation and conferencing are discussed into detail. Also, the way in which the victim can participate in the administration of the prison sentence is dealt with. As a next step, the role of public prosecutors and judges after mediation or conferencing has taken place is analysed. To which extent can or should they take the outcome of restorative or victim oriented practices into account in further decision making processes? Furthermore attention is given to the relevance and applicability of important restorative justice principles such as voluntary participation and confidentiality when the case goes through the criminal justice process. The article ends with some general evaluative findings on the attitudes and the support of legal professionals towards restorative justice and restorative practices.