Since the beginning of 2020 mediation in penal cases (mediation in strafzaken) has officially become the preferred intervention for victim-offender mediation in the criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Although mediation in general has a sound theoretical framework, the methodological elaboration appears pluriform and somewhat limited. In practice mediators in penal cases operate conform their own personal and professional standards and preferences, apparently without tailor made methodology. This article describes the current methodological directions such as transformative or narrative mediation and seeks for useful references. As a part of restorative practice, mediation in penal cases seems to remain secluded from insights and methodology developed in the domain of restorative justice practices. Educational institutes providing trainings for mediators barely refer to this theoretical framework. Besides a methodological reconnaissance this article offers a fundamental comparison of mediation styles and interventions, but is above all an incentive to further methodological research and development.

Is the concept of ‘retribution’ compatible with restorative justice? Starting from the perspective that retribution is an imperative given and that restorative justice should be a preferent option in coping with crime, the concept of retribution needs to be redesigned. Rethinking retribution needs to take into account the hypersensitive nature and complexity of modern society. Apparently incompatible interests need to be reconciled, paying tribute to the citizenship of both the victim and the perpetrator. Notwithstanding censure to be in place, implying the infliction of ‘pain’, the aim must lie in a reconstruction of civil relationships affirming the victim and the perpetrator to be part of the community. Standards applied must reflect objectivity, implying proportionate punishment, with a preference towards restorative justice because it is the more subsidiary option. Thus, retribution notwithstanding the imperative and painful nature of retribution, the execution should pursue the reconstruction of (civil) relationships.

‘The victim’ is an important figure in restorative justice, but who is this victim? In this article, I will review articles published in this journal between 2005 and 2019 in order to establish the characteristics of victims recognized in the field of restorative justice. It first needs to be noted that there is not one homogeneous victim group. The diversity in victims and their needs calls for research investigating when, for whom, and under which circumstances restorative justice practices lead to victim satisfaction. Many articles reviewed address this question. When I nevertheless try to extract an ideal type of victim of restorative justice, it seems that the victim is agentic and resilient, expresses a wide range of emotions, prioritizes reparation over punitive measures and is overall very satisfied with the restorative justice practice.

As an approach to law and justice, restorative justice focuses squarely on addressing human needs; it acknowledges the equal dignity of all parties, irrespective of their role in the harmful act; it accepts responsibilities for addressing the disadvantages or inequities that crime has bequeathed to victims and that often have contributed to offending on the part of the perpetrator; and it derives its creative potential from the shared vulnerability and reciprocal exchange of concern that occurs through respectful face-to-face encounter. Therefore restorative justice constitutes a relational justice of care.

This article outlines two points of criticism related to Christopher Marshall’s discussion of a relational justice of care. First, addressing the needs of the parties involved in a criminal justice case finds its appropriate place in the post-trial stage. In the pre-trial and trial stages, protecting the legal rights and equal treatment of suspects should take priority over caring for suspects. Secondly, if the outcome of the restorative encounter in the pre-trial stages has a bearing on the verdict of the judge, the encounter may risk to lose its authenticity. The offender may have reason to believe that a socially appropriate performance will be rewarded with less punishment.

Organizing restorative justice practices around crimes involving extremist violence remains a difficult task. It is not self-evident to bring perpetrators with very specific and radical ideas into contact with their victims. Nevertheless, interesting initiatives have been made in a number of European countries. In Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland, among others, initiatives were taken in response to the extremist violence that these countries experienced at the end of the 20th century. These initiatives have a very specific context and praxis, initiated ad hoc with attention to the specific needs of those involved. In no case can they be considered standard models or generalized practices. This contribution describes some of these initiatives in Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland and reflects on the potential uses of these dialogues in general.

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).

The authors discuss reparations, with particular attention to programs launched to do justice to the victims of the Holocaust. While focusing on the compensation scheme of the Dutch Railways to the victims of the transports during the Second World War, they examine in which respects the suffering and victimization of some victim groups are not or insufficiently recognized. They compare the establishment of the compensation scheme and the procedure for repayment with findings from victimological research into the recognition of victimization and reparation, including the symbolic value of compensation, recognition of suffering, inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders, and victim participation. The analysis concludes with a few considerations about how secondary victimization could have been prevented.

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.

The last years victim awareness has received special attention in the Dutch probation service. Three goals are central: respecting the rights and interests of the victim, mapping and increasing victim awareness of the probation client, and working towards the possibilities for recovery. Based on discussions with probation officers, this contribution sketches a picture of how this takes shape in practice. Experience shows that good results are achieved, but that more training and attention to the subject is needed to give it a full place in the probation work.

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.