In this article the German concept of accessory prosecution (Nebenklage) is discussed. The Nebenklage was implemented in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1877. It had merely an accessory function in conjunction with the private prosecution and the Klageerzwingungsverfahren, two legal institutions which had little practical relevance. Nowadays, in the course of the modern victim movement, the Nebenklage has radically changed into an instrument that is clearly provided as the main participatory option for victims interested in actively contributing to the trial of ‘their’ criminal. Previous research findings are outlined and the results of an explorative survey are presented. The findings suggest that the mere presence of the victim lawyer can significantly change the atmosphere in the courtroom, thus enhancing the willingness of the defence to treat the victim more respectfully.

Since 2007, an organisation called ‘Slachtoffer in Beeld’ offers victims and juvenile delinquents the opportunity to engage in victim-offender dialogue. Since 2010, it is also possible for adult offenders to engage in victim-offender dialogue. Van Montfoort Advisory evaluated the implementation of victim-offender dialogue in 2010. The article sums up the most relevant conclusions of the evaluation, with a focus on conclusions related to victims. Results related to the internal implementation at ‘Slachtoffer in Beeld’ and the external implemention at organisations who refer to victim-offender dialogue are presented. Numbers of referrals are shown. It is striking to see that most referrals are coming from organisations working with offenders, even though victim-offender dialogue is, given the parlementary history, primarily an offer for victims. In the article reasons are given to explain the difference between the number of referrals from victim oriented organisations and offender oriented organisations. At the end possible effects of victims-offender dialogue on victims are presented.

In the past decades the social intuitionist approach to moral psychology has eclipsed rationalist models. The social intutionist approach considers emotions to be a driving force in moral judgement, while reasoning most often functions as a post hoc rationalisation of the initial emotion. This article argues that the social intutionist approach is also applicable to the choice and preferences victims make and have while navigating the criminal justice system. This is illustrated through two recent evaluations of victims experiences in the Netherlands: an evaluation of the Dutch victim-offender encounters and the oral and written Victim Impact Statements (VIS). It is shown that participation in the former programme is a function of low emotional impact, while participants in the VIS-schemes present with high levels of anxiety and anger, and exhibit signs of possible posttraumatic disorder. The implications of these findings are discussed and framed in terms of the social intuitionist model of moral psychology.

This article sketches some important tendencies in the attention for victims of crime, including in supranational regulation, with regard to the position of the offender and possibilities for restorative justice. The evaluation of victim policy in Belgium offers a view on this topic: victims have certain expectations towards the justice system and pose questions with regard to the offender. A third issue regards the place of restoration within the whole range of consequences of crime for victims: what is the meaning of ‘harm’ and what is the content of ‘restoration’ for victims? A last topic considers the openness of victim assistance programmes with regard to the offender dimension and possibilities of restorative justice. This article thus evaluates the possible link between victim assistance and restorative justice.

The position of victims of crime has shown marked improvement over the past 30 years. The rise of the victim has been associated with the growth of a unified ‘victim movement’; a social movement that strives to improve the position of victims of crime. However, it is questionable whether the victim movement should be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. Instead of one movement, there appear to be a number of victim movements. There are differences between the victim advocates in the United States, Victim Support in Europe, the violence against women movement and proponents of restorative justice.. In this article, reasons for these differences are sought in victim-endogenous factors: differences in victims’ characteristics and the idealtypes employed by the different movements are an important explanation for the divergent development in organisations representing victims interests, which in turn influences their policy preferences. It is argued that advocates of restorative justice would benefit from understanding both the reality and the distortion involved in the idealtypes, including their own. This would allow proponents of restorative justice to adapt their practices in a manner that is both suitable and convincing to the representative and target group of the different victim movements.

This article gives a complete and detailed overview of research evaluations and outcomes of restorative justice projects in the Netherlands over the past decades. It involves developments where clearly restorative justice inspiration was visible. The author describes restorative practices with juveniles and the so-called project ‘Herstelbemiddeling’ (restorative mediation) that started in the nineties. Most evaluations had positive outcomes, but nevertheless there was no continuation from the political side. The author also examines the introduction of the country wide ‘victim-offender conversations’ which are carried out by the national victim support organization. Although this choice is justified because of the vulnerability of some victims and the chance of revictimisation, the author questions if victim organizations can really - in the best interests of the victims – turn away from problems related to the (hardened) treatment of offenders. Victim-offender conversations are to be respected and to be continued, but they cannot be seen as a restorative justice practice.

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.

In Western languages those affected by crime are universally labelled as the sacrificed ones. This label is inspired by the suffering of Jesus Christ and evokes images of helplessness and meekness. It acts as hidden justification for the marginal, self-effacing role of victims in criminal procedure and restorative justice. The author argues for deconstruction of the stereotypical victim label and the creation of more space in criminal procedure for victims as autonomous parties. In his view the recent innovation in Dutch law of a limited Victim Impact Statement still gives victims insufficient voice. He also argues for a reconceptualisation of restorative justice practices as a supplement to the criminal trial rather than as a substitute.