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.

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 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.

In the Netherlands more and more criminal lawyers recognize the importance of Restorative Justice. The author illustrates this on the basis of several criminal cases in different phases of the criminal process. Under conditions Restorative Justice is of importance for all parties, including the suspect/offender. Criminal lawyers have to find the courage to overcome cold feet, so that they can fully meet the needs and interests of their clients.

This article provides data about qualitative and quantitative research that was executed in juvenile detention centres in The Netherlands in the framework of the EU-funded Restorative Justice in Europe project. The results of a survey amongst 75 staff members are presented. Special attention is paid to the restorative handling of internal conflicts and crimes within the detention centre. Restorative Justice Nederland, executing this research, also developed a self-assessment tool for prisons, the Organisational Maturity Grid Restorative Practices, that can be used to assess how ‘mature’ restorative practices are within an organisation. Based on this maturity grid and the data of the research advice is provided on how restorative practices within juvenile detention centres can be brought to the next level.

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.

In a recent novel that received much public revulsion, Flemish writer Kristien Hemmerechts identifies with Michelle Martin, ex-wife and accomplice of the notorious criminal Marc Dutroux. To a certain extent her book is a plea for rehabilitation and re-socialization of Martin. By the wider public this ‘humanization’ is experienced as unacceptable. Nowadays re-acceptation of ex-convicts has become increasingly problematic. It seems the public would prefer to banish many ex-offenders to a desert island or a distant country. This development shows that the ethic of forgiveness has lost social influence. In this essay Hemmerechts' position is compared to that of Dostoevsky, especially with his novel Crime and Punishment in which the Gospel message of humility, charity and compassion reverberates.