Since 1994, public prosecutors in Belgium can propose ‘penal mediation’ to criminal suspects. The supervision and follow-up of this procedure are provided by ‘justice assistants’ (comparable to probation officers), who systematically record crucial information and register it in the national database SIPAR. An exploration of this database reveals interesting insights regarding the actual practice of penal mediation. On the basis of the available data we also examined whether or not we could find relevant correlations between characteristics of (offenders in) cases and the extent to which cases have resulted in an agreement and proper compliance with that agreement. Finally, for a better comprehension of the actual practice of penal mediation in Belgium twelve interviews with justice assistants have been conducted.

COSA (Circles of Support and Accountability) have been fully implemented and accepted in the Dutch probation organization. In COSA projects, volunteers support a former sex offender during his rehabilitation, supervised by professionals. Projects offer national coverage and until now, 42 sex offenders have been supported. International effect studies and Dutch research into effective processes offer a scientific framework, offering the theoretical and empirical underpinnings for a COSA intervention model. The normative basis of COSA is found in its specific place in restorative justice. Primarily, COSA strives for restoration of relationships within a moral and responsible community and restoration of the offender. Restoration of family bonds is an option, but needs to be well coordinated with professionals.

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.

Conferencing is a restorative justice practice which has started developing quite consistently since the 1990s, in majority in Anglophone countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the USA, Canada or the UK and in particular with consistently promising results for juvenile justice in Northern Ireland. Some continental European, Latin American and African countries are also starting to introduce this alternative to traditional criminal justice, especially in the case of juvenile justice, with some equally promising results. This article presents up-to-date information about the state of conferencing in the world and discusses some of the major conclusions that have come out of a European research project and book.

At the end of 2000, a pilot project began in Flanders (Belgium) to offer family group conferencing for juvenile offenders. Since June 2006, this restorative practice – together with victim-offender mediation – has been inserted in the new Youth Justice Act, making conferencing available in all judicial districts in Flanders. Five years later, however, the mediation-services had to conclude that the number of referrals for conferencing remains rather limited. This observation inspired the mediation services to take actions to bring conferencing more to the attention. This article reports on the findings of a study that was part of this process. Based on (1) an analysis of all conferencing-files that were referred between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 31, (2) focus groups with youth court social workers and criminologists working at the level of the public prosecutor and (3) surveys conducted with youth judges, the study aimed to identify and discuss barriers and obstacles within the current referral practice of conferencing in Flanders.

This article sketches an experiment initiated by a local mediation service in Flanders (BAL) with regard to the role of a supporting volunteer in the context of family group conferencing. Engaged as researchers in this experiment, the authors reconstruct the conceptual challenges of this project and the solution proposed by the team of mediators. One of these challenges revolves around finding an appropriative account of restorative justice that fits with the aims of the Belgian conferencing practice and clarifies the role of the supporting volunteer. Another comes down to distinguishing this role with the essential tasks of the moderator, and formulating deontological devices. In the last part of this contribution a few learning points are formulated with regard to the process and results of the experiment. One of these points is the need to rethink how successfully offering the possibility of engaging a supporting volunteer to the stake holding parties.

The article reflects on the conceptual work undertaken during the first year of ALTERNATIVE, a project coordinated by KU Leuven. The overall objective of the project is to provide an alternative and deepened understanding of justice and security based on empirical evidence of how to handle conflicts within intercultural contexts, mainly through the active participation of citizens. The paper focuses mainly on the relation of the concept of citizenship with restorative justice, especially as viewed and enacted in the four intercultural settings of the ALTERNATIVE project. Several issues are discussed: the concept of participatory citizenship in relation to crime and conflict; the claim of the discourse of restorative justice to the concept of participatory citizenship and democracy and the challenges in the restorative justice discourse that complicate its relationship to participatory citizenship. Next, insight is provided in the ways the ALTERNATIVE project tries to tackle some of these challenges, by exploring and strengthening the relationship between the concept of active citizenship and justice in Europe. By targeting the intercultural field the ALTERNATIVE aims to explore the potential of mediation services and restorative justice models to engage with macro societal conflicts that are not referred to these services by the criminal justice system, and on the other hand expand the way some of the crimes referred by the criminal justice system are handled by the mediation services alternatively by fostering alliances with various civil society organisations. Employing ‘action research’ methodology, it is argued that the concept and framework of ‘nodal governance’ (Shearing and Wood, 2003) can serve to support participatory modes of conflict regulation. Interactive settings are created, which allow for spaces between informal and formal justice, and between justice mechanisms at the individual and at the societal level (Aertsen, 2001, 2008). Arguments are provided in support of the need to promote broader models of restorative justice which are able to address social and systemic crimes and conflicts, and which will help the theory and practice of RJ to move beyond the individualisation of crime and its remedies.

The Eigen Kracht Centrale is striving for a society based on participation and mutual self reliance of citizens, where citizens remain in charge of their own life, especially when dealing with organizations and government bodies. It is important, in the Eigen Kracht Centrale vision, that everyone is part of society and everyone can participate, everyone has a say and remains in charge of his or her own life, everyone gets support from their own social network: family, friends, neighbors, etc.
Especially when problems arise that might lead to involvement of various (social care) institutions.
To implement this vision in daily life, the Eigen Kracht Centrale has introduced the Family Group-conference as a decision making model. This model appears to be effective for citizens to make their own plans. When given responsibility for the situation and the solution, citizens, in every situation thinkable, create, according to themselves and professionals as well, save and creative plans that fit.
In this article the FG-c for a group, district or neighbourhood is discussed and is illustrated by real life examples. Even when people don’t know each other, they can make a plan to solve conflicts in their street or neighbourhood: they all have a strong interest in living in safe, comfortable surroundings. Although the experience with this variant of FGC is limited in The Netherlands: what are they, what lessons can be learned?

Utrecht, the fourth largest city of The Netherlands, is addressing resolving social conflict by promoting schools to adhere to the Peaceful School Program and civilians and professionals to join the Peaceful Neighborhood Program. The Peaceful School Program is designed to address problematic behavior of youth in primary, secondary and high school education and evolved into a democratic and participatory citizenship program. The Peaceful Neighborhood Program is involving important organizations that are active within the neighborhood, members of the community and stake-holders to adapt peaceful attitudes in daily life, including a mind-set that addresses conflicts by resolving them (together).
These two programs are in the process of ‘conquering’ the whole of the city of Utrecht and every single neighborhood. The so-called Utrecht Model for Mediation is supporting these Peaceful Programs, through empowering citizens and professional to enhance their ‘peaceful skills’ and skills for conflict resolution. Citizens and professionals are being trained to develop this mindset. The Utrecht Model for Mediation is organizing a community of mediators that can be of help. A pool of volunteer mediators is being formed to help organizations, professionals, parents, students and members of the community in case of problems, tensions, problematic behavior of youth groups, etcetera. Professional mediators intervene in case of escalated conflicts and penal cases.

Some ten years ago, victim-offender mediation was introduced for the first time in EU-legislation through article 10 of the 2001 framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. In 2012 this framework decision was replaced by a more extensive directive establishing minimum standards for victims of crime. This article examines the position of restorative justice in this new legal instrument. The outcome is mixed. The emphasis on safeguards in case restorative justice is applied is a positive move towards good practices, but it is disappointing that a right to access restorative justice services was not adopted.

Victims of crime entertain various wishes regarding the criminal justice system. This paper present the results of a study that made use of vignettes. Victim wishes regarding the goals of punishment were examined, and the relation with degree offender intent (intent, negligence) has been established. The results show that when the perpetrator acted intentionally, victims have a greater wish for retribution and the other punishment goals, but they have a smaller need for restoration. Victims wish to be compensated and to receive apologies from the offender, but generally are reluctant to meet with the perpetrator in person.

The author analyses and compares several distinct models of doing justice to find out which is serving ‘sustainable justice’ the best. Sustainable justice could be defined as justice that produces conflict resolutions that last for a long time and in this way contribute to a more sustainable society. Modern developmental methods for organisations make use of assessments to measure, compare and improve the effectiveness of organizational cultures. These methods are used in this contribution to analyse the organizational cultures of mediation, the traditional accusatorial (penal) procedure, problem-solving courts (with a focus on drug courts) and restorative justice conferencing. The comparison results in conclusions indicating that mediation and problem solving courts have a sound and effective organizational culture, due to healthy conflict management styles, characterized by managing both opposition and competition constructively and by a stimulating person-oriented focus. Restorative justice conferences bring together many stakeholders in a conflict and its resolution and facilitates in this way the awareness of the connections between many problems behind the actual conflict at hand: for this reason the resolutions may have a deeper societal impact and a greater sustainability.

Considerable political pressure is currently being brought to impose severe punishments, and it is frequently suggested that these punishments would enhance the wellbeing of victims and achieve ‘closure’. Populist images, such as ‘victims have a right to revenge’ have gained great influence. To what extent would therapeutic professionals have to support victim needs that are shaped within such punitive contexts? In this paper it is first argued that revenge embraces ambivalent meanings. Although avengers are lauded in the popular imagination, feelings of revenge are still viewed as ethically unacceptable. In recent decades, however, a penal populism has been gaining ground as a result of which revenge was stripped of its pejorative associations. In a punitive climate it is believed that victims would demand harsher penalties and that such penalties would promote closure and peace. Research findings show however that revenge may bring temporary relief, but anger rumination precludes healing. Subsequently the question is discussed whether two different forms of victim participation, victim impact statements and restorative justice conferences, might temper revenge feelings. Because VIS-participants (dealing with high levels of anger and fear) believe that their statements will culminate in longer sentences, they are generally frustrated that the imposed sentence is not tough enough. After the procedure they keep on viewing the offender as a malign person. Restorative procedures generally show an opposite picture. Finally this paper is criticizing the tendency of victim-oriented therapeutization within criminal justice and restorative justice. It is argued that the voice of the victim and the process of emotional healing should be separated strictly.

The tendency to revalorise emotions in the response to offending, seems to face a dilemma. On the one hand, experiencing crime and reacting to it inevitably are imbued by emotion. On the other hand, giving way to emotions in responding to crime entails the risks of disproportionate and unequal justice. This article argues that there is a fundamental difference between the emotions promoted to be included in the response to crime and the emotions feared as a risk to overwhelm good and proportionate jurisprudence. The first ones focus on the needs of the immediate stakeholders of the offence and seek their (re-)inclusion. The second type of emotions focuses on the criminal act and seeks to keep the threat it represents under control through punishment and incapacitation. It is a socio-ethical choice to promote the inclusionary approach. Whereas the rehabilitative approach has addressed the needs of the offenders only, the restorative tendency addresses the needs of both the victim and the offenders in a more balanced way. This balance also helps to avoid that respectful responses to crime degrade into norm erosion. The option for revalorising inclusionary emotions in the response to crime through restorative justice is located as a next phase in the civilisation process, described originally by Elias.

In this article attention is paid to the thoughts and feelings which underlie criminal law and restorative justice, as well as the question whether those thoughts and feelings have to be regarded as rational or irrational. For this purpose, the author has firstly examined the relationship between thinking and feeling from the perspective of the so-called cognitive emotion theory as put forth by the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the Dutch philosopher Mirjam van Reijen. In addition, this contribution also addresses the ideas of the Stoics, Spinoza and Schopenhauer, since the aforementioned theory goes back on the ideas of these philosophers. These philosophers depart from the view on man and world in which interconnectedness plays an important role – as the opposite of separateness. This view which reflects the mystic-religious perspective on man and world forms an important connecting thread in this article, as this turns out to have direct consequences for the idea about the (ir)rationality of certain thoughts and feelings, as well as for the (ir)rationality of criminal law and restorative justice. Special attention is paid to emotions that are relevant within the context of criminal law and restorative justice – which include anger, resentment, hatred, fear and compassion. After having explained – on the basis of the cognitive emotion theory – how thinking and feeling relate to each other and which thoughts and feelings – on the basis of the perspective of interconnectedness – have to be considered as (ir)rational, the article examines whether punishment is (ir)rational and whether the regular theories which legitimate punishment (i.e. retribution and prevention theories) are ‘rationalities of something irrational’. Furthermore, it is assessed whether the thoughts and feelings behind restorative justice are (ir)rational. The article concludes with a suggestion in which the main findings of this contribution are summarized, in order to stimulate discussion.

Rooted in forty years of history and experience a new concept is developed in empowering victims of domestic violence. Sheltering is not the solution to stop the violence; domestic violence is a social problem instead of an individual issue. The Orange Houses is a Dutch women’s refuge shelter with a new approach: ‘sheltered in the open’. The Orange House is visible and recognisable and one of the consequences is working with all family members in order to stop the violence.Family Group Conference as a decision making model appears to be effective for families to make their own plans. When given responsibility of the situation and the solution, families, also in situations of domestic violence, create, according to themselves and professionals as well, safe and creative plans that fit.Illustrated by a personal story it becomes clear that family can and will make the positive difference for members of them in trouble.Research is an important key to ensure that civilians in comparable situations – for instance elderly abuse, abuse by professionals, divorce – do have the choice of making their own plans and decisions before or instead of professional intervention.

The author made a tour throughout the country to see how people fulfill their social responsibility in the process of creating a normal and stabile situation again after a criminal offence, after the use of (domestic) violence. Yearly 37.000 women are victims of serious to very serious forms of violence in the Netherlands. It turns out that several initiatives have been developed in the last few years in different parts of the country whereby networks of people are used to stop violence and to look for ways to continue relationships or contacts. The article contains descriptions of powerful conferences. For example, one between two Turkish families who had years of conflicts, partly through two 16-year-old daughters. It almost turned into blood revenge and serious violence. Talking to each other in an organized and well prepared setting however resulted in a positive situation for all parties. Social systems and networking turn out to be the key factors for restoration.

The Austrian social historian Christa Pelikan wrote in 2009 an article with the following title: On the efficacy of Victim-Offender-Mediation in cases of partnership violence in Austria, or: Men don’t get better, but women get stronger: Is it still true?
It contains outcomes of an empirical study which reads in short: The efficacy of VOM in cases partnership violence is to a large part due to the empowerment of the women victims, but partly, albeit to a smaller percentage, also due to an inner change, to insight and following from that a change of behaviour on the side of the male perpetrators. These achievements should be understood as part of a comprehensive societal change – a change of expectations regarding the use of violence in intimate partnerships. The research presented is to be perceived against the background of another study carried out 10 years before; its title was: ‘The efficacy of criminal law interventions in cases of partnership violence: Comparing The Criminal Trial and Victim-Offender Mediation (out of court offence compensation – ATA)’. Quantitaive and qualitative research is used, as well as a description of cases. In our journal a Dutch translation of this relevant (2009) article on RJ and domestic violence has been published.

Topical developments regarding the use of restorative justice in the Netherlands are discussed. Several initiatives have been taken, showing a genuine interest in the benefits of the use of restorative justice. However, there are underlying risks for a managerial use of restorative justice. Momentarily Dutch criminal justice policy features a shift towards settlement by the Public Prosecution, implying a use of restorative justice in the context of consensual settlement. However, there are no signs directing towards an intrinsic interest for the concept of restorative justice by the criminal justice authorities. Notwithstanding the legislator having started a fundamental revision of the Dutch Code of Penal Procedure, there are no intentions known to acknowledge restorative justice arrangements to be part of the regular penal procedures and sanctions. Nevertheless, incorporating the use of restorative justice arrangements requires a systematic implementation of restorative justice arrangements.

In restorative thinking it is often assumed that the involvement of volunteers, almost naturally, flows from its values and aims. But are there really convincing arguments that account for, justify or even necessitate an active policy on volunteering in restorative justice practices?This contribution focuses on the moderate view on restorative justice as developed in the Belgian context. It is argued that this approach offers a variety of reasons for developing a volunteers-programme. Two central issues in a moderate view on restorative justice are essential to understand the value of volunteering in restorative justice practices. Such a view sees 1) crime as a multi-layered phenomenon, and 2) takes participative and communicative justice as its central aim.