This article presents and critically discusses a new Recommendation on restorative justice (CM/Rec(2018)8) that was adopted on 3 October 2018 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This new regulation builds on the previous Recommendation No. R(99)19 on mediation in penal matters and recommends the governments of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe the adopt and implement the principles of restorative justice as described in the Appendix of the new Recommendation. These guidelines apply to national authorities and national agencies in general, and to judges, public prosecutors, police, prisons, probation, juvenile justice agencies, victim support services and restorative justice services in particular. The article presents the origins of the Recommendation, its contents and its meaning for restorative justice developments in Europe and beyond.

This article is based on research into the use of mediation in criminal cases at ZSM Midden-Nederland. It focusses on the question how referrals to mediation can be optimized. The research shows that there is much room for improvement and a broader deployment of mediation. Lack of knowledge of the criminal justice partners involved, leads to misconceptions about the mediation process, about which institution should be deployed, and about the (in)suitability of cases for mediation. This lack of knowledge seems to be greatest among the police, while they play an important role within ZSM. Moreover, Victim Support Netherlands has a dominant role in the choice whether or not to refer to mediation. The overall conclusion is that mediation is not yet sufficiently anchored in the criminal justice partners’ system.

How does the police deal with conflict resolution and (referrals to) mediation? Is this perceived as relevant within the new national police organization? This article elaborates on work processes within the National Police, including ZSM-settlements, the punitive aspects of police culture and the impoverishment of neighborhood-oriented police work. It is concluded that there is little room within the police for responsive approaches to crime and social unsafety. However, there are still police professionals who question ‘assembly line’-processing of criminal cases, support restorative justice strategies and try to improve the citizen-empowerment in neighbourhoods.

In a recent research study entitled Encountering ‘The Other’: Victim Offender Dialogue in Serious Crime the impact and outcomes for victims/survivors of meeting with the prisoner participants who had caused them harm were examined. In the vast majority of those cases, organised within the context of the Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP), forgiveness was offered by victims and received by offenders. This research, utilizing a qualitative multiple case study method, examined twenty-five randomly selected cases referred for victim/offender mediation over a 10-year period, in which victims/survivors, following a period of preparation, had participated in at least one day-long dialogue with their offenders facilitated by trained personnel. This article addresses only one of the research questions posited in this study, namely, the ways in which apology and forgiveness played a part in those dialogues and in the experience of the participants following their mutual encounters. It is argued that granting forgiveness can have great power in its effects when experienced by the participants.

This article discusses the willingness of the victim to judge the offender more mildly after the latter apologized for his wrongdoing and shows that he is involved in behavioral change. A large group of victims wants to help (young) perpetrators and offer them a second chance, even victims who have been treated violently. It is argued that these forms of compassion express a caring attitude, the wish that the offender will be rehabilitated and that a change in behaviour is more important than compensation. This attitude can also be referred to as ‘forbearance’, in terms that a less severe sanction is sufficient. This goodwill factor may well be the most important aspect of ‘doing justice’ in restorative meetings.

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.

Whether and under which conditions restorative justice can be applied to cases of corporate violence is explored starting from the phenomenon of corporate violence, defined as acts committed by corporations in the course of their regular activities but with harmful consequences for people’s health. Specific characteristics of different types of corporate violence are presented, as well as victims’ needs, experiences and expectations. The applicability of restorative justice, but also the need of its rethinking, is discussed through an analysis of the role of its key actors and the concepts of participation and restoration.

This article explores victimisation by corporate violence on the basis of case studies, interviews and focus groups with victims and professionals carried out in the European project Victims and Corporations. The typical characteristics of victimisation by corporate violence are described, as well as the harmful effects for victims and their social context. The problematic aspects of tackling corporate violence through criminal procedures lead to a first evaluation of the possible contribution of restorative processes to this field on the basis of interviews and a focus group with restorative justice professionals.

The article provides a description of the issues and considerrations facing Flemish victim-offender mediators on the job. Instead of focusing on professinal risks and caveats present within victim-offender mediation, the authors concentrate on the positive concept of ‘enabling high quality mediations’. A description is given of the frames that are felt to be helpful towards mediators, stressing the need to act with due creativity if needed. Moreover, in order to enable high quality victim-offender mediations, conditions need to be met, more specifically a common acknowledgment of the need for teamwork. The latter implies conditions such a sound legal basis, a deontological code, formal procedures and constant interaction with practice.

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 apologies offered by young offenders in restorative justice conferences are often of poor quality. In this article the difficulties that accompany the offering of excuses are discussed. Offenders sometimes lack the language skills to pronounce an adequate apology, are anxious or insecure or believe that they have not been treated fairly. The mediation setting itself also has effects: sometimes perpetrators feel intimidated and feel compelled to say something that resembles an excuse. A related problem is that the perceptions about the sincerity of the apology can vary considerably. This perception-mismatch also occurs among victims: what one victim considers sincere is ‘fake’ for another. Many people
– also advocates of restorative justice – trust that the offender will offer a sincere apology, without realizing that this is not self-evident in a thorny confrontation setting. This article aims to temper this sincerity-expectation.

The Halt-intervention is an extra-judicial intervention for young people who have committed a minor offense. This article zooms in on the results of a literature review concerning the efficacy of offering an apology, one of the core elements of the Halt-intervention. Offering an apology leads to more insight into the consequences of their behavior and it increases the sense of moral norms. Shame and guilt play a crucial role in this process. The effect of the excuse can be increased by good mediation between perpetrator and victim, good preparation of the conversation, and the drafting of a contract. These instructions can also be applied when offering an apology in other interventions.

Empirical research on restorative justice shows that offenders can apologise to victims. Because of the ritual component of restorative justice and the possible influence on the justice system, certain questions arise: how do victims perceive these apologies? Is it important for victims that these apologies are sincere? The aim of the article is to discuss these questions through three topics, namely the physical aspect of the ritual, the symbolic meaning for victims and the relation between the offender’s apologies and the victim’s reaction.

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.

This article presents some of the results of a study in which 25 adult men were interviewed who took part in restorative mediation in the French speaking part of Belgium and were desisting from crime. Their narratives were used to find out whether participation in restorative justice influenced positively their journey towards desistance; if so, which factors in restorative mediation supported this change process and how these factors had been helpful. The results suggest that restorative mediation has the potential to contribute to desistance in a humble, but significant way. Core aspects of mediation supported mostly already started desistance processes and they were helpful in a mainly cognitive way. The authors propose to further investigate the specific and helpful ‘presence’ of mediators and to reflect upon the apparent absence in restorative mediation of practical follow-up support towards desistance.

In this contribution, the justification of restorative practices in prison is first discussed from a normative perspective. On the basis of Lippke’s retributive theory of imprisonment it is argued that modern, humane retributive sanctioning entails an obligation to provide prisoners with opportunities to engage in restorative practices. Second, restorative practices in prison are examined from the perspective of possible impacts on the empowerment of prisoners and their experience to move away from crime and do good. Finally, it is argued that in order to yield positive effects, restorative practices in prison need to be supported by a safe and healthy living environment.

The Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) strives for a more restorative prison culture in the Netherlands, incorporating a more victim-oriented and restorative way of working in prisons. To this end, DJI has asked for a plan and process evaluation of three restorative courses among (juvenile and adult) prisoners in the Netherlands: Puinruimen, SOS and DAPPER. This article first offers an overview of the most important findings of this evaluation which was finalized in 2016. Based on the findings of the plan evaluation, a cautious yet clearly positive picture emerges of the design and substantiation of each of the three courses examined. That is, an extensive description and substantiation exists of each course. In addition, evidence exists in the (limited) scientific literature for one of the goals that each of these courses have formulated: to increase prisoners’ awareness of the consequences of crime for victims. The literature also suggests that creating trust among participants and a safe group process during the course is helpful in attaining the goals formulated. The process evaluation of the execution of the three courses in practice further strengthens the cautious, yet positive picture painted by the plan evaluation. An examination of the experiences of the courses’ participants lends further support to the observation that these courses can attain part of their goals. For example, after the course participants were more positive about the added value of victim-offender mediation for them personally than before.
Aside from these findings, this article also argues for a deeper consideration of the constructive roles that both emotions guilt and shame can play in the restorative process of prisoners during these courses. The article ends with a number of recommendations for restorative courses in prison and a sketch of the current state of affairs in the Netherlands regarding these courses.

Restorative justice has evolved from an unknown concept towards a model that is considered world-wide when it comes to changes in the penal and youth justice sector. The restorative model expands towards handling conflicts in other areas, such as neighbourhoods, business, welfare issues, family matters and behavioural problems in schools. This article deals with the latter. Restorative practices are based upon an open and respectful dialogue, which presupposes certain attitudes and capacities. The article looks into possible risks, but especially the chances restorative practices in schools can offer for socially vulnerable youth.

This article describes the context of this thematic issue on restorative practices in schools. In 2016, KU Leuven performed an explorative research named “Field Glasses”. The research dealt with similarities and differences between restorative justice in the penal context on the one hand, and the domains of community building, adult education and schools on the other hand (Deboeck e.a., 2017). Literature has been studied and actors of both practice and policy-making have been interviewed. This article describes some of the main findings with regard to restorative practices and schools.

In the field of restorative justice (RJ), relatively much is known about victims’ reasons for wanting to participate in either mediation (as part of the criminal process) or victim-offender contact (parallel to the criminal process). Much less is known, however, about why victims refuse to take part in RJ services. The current article sheds light on this issue and is based on a joint exploratory research initiative by Victim in Focus and Victim Support the Netherlands. The results indicate that participation in mediation and victim-offender contact is significantly associated with the type of offense. Victims of traffic accidents participate significantly less often in mediation than victims of other offenses. In case of victim-offender contact, victims of violent crimes participate significantly less often while victims of traffic accidents participate more often than victims of other crimes. In addition, the referrer of the case and the victim’s age are also significantly associated with participation in victim-offender contact. When a case was referred through the judicial stakeholders, victims more often did not participate, whereas when victims registered themselves, it more often led to a form of victim-offender contact. With regard to age, victims younger than 25 were significantly less often willing to participate than older victims. The specific reasons victims mention for not wanting to participate in RJ are twofold: both emotional and pragmatic reasons are mentioned. The latter were most common with regard to both mediation and victim-offender contact: victims primarily wonder ‘what’s in it for me?’ and seem to base their decision on whether to partake in RJ on its answer. Mentioning emotional reasons not to participate was in case of victim-offender contact significantly associated with judicial referrers of the case, while such reasons were less mentioned when a case was referred through victim support in The Netherlands. To further explore these associations, more research is needed.