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.

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.

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.

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.

The author first describes the deontological axioma for the role of the defense counsel in the domain of criminal procedure. Since here the most serious charges are brought against a suspect, who may have all his life-perspectives to lose by severe punishments, the duty of the legal counsel is to be as one-sided in the defense of his clients views and interests as possible and as allowed by professional ethics. He is the guardian of the legitimate interests of the suspect in the context of a legal battle in or out of court about the legal truth of what is said to have happened. In view of the ideals of restorative justice (illustrated by references to Nils Christies Conflicts as property) a new set of rules and customs should be developed that can function as a framework of ‘restorative procedural law’. In the context of restorative justice legal counsel of both the suspect and the victim should be expected and able to function much more as ‘restorative coaches’, seeking co-operation and deliberation between all stakeholders. But, should clients – suspects and victims alike – decide against such an approach and want ‘their day in court’ this should also be possible and be realised. The independent courts should always remain the ultimate refuge for those seeking justice.

In his contribution the author points out that the right to legal assistance during police interrogations offers a wonderful opportunity to pay attention to the possibility of mediation and to ensure that the interrogating police officer abides Article 51h of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.

Based on a literature research and program evaluation of the practice of Victim in Focus (Slachtoffer in Beeld) in 2013, two issues are addressed: What are the possible effects of victim offender mediation? Which active mechanisms will cause or contribute to these effects? The authors describe the current context and developments in The Netherlands concerning restorative justice and then describe the effects and possible active mechanisms such as satisfaction, diminishing fear, anger and shame, information and consent, procedural justice, reduction of recidivism, compliance. In a synthesis of active mechanisms they present four domains or mediating factors: from incomprehension to comprehension (cognitive restoration); from unease to ease (emotional restoration); from injustice to justice (moral restoration); from powerless to powerful feelings (restoration of control). The victim offender mediation as a ritual has an impact or is supposed to have an impact on these four domains for both victims and offenders. Within the four domains four activities or interactions within victim offender mediation are presented: creating understanding through inter-subjectivity; expression of fear, trauma and shame; doing justice by excuses/apologies and restorative actions; regaining self control. Further research is needed to validate the model and to get more insight in essential or primary and secondary aspects in the explanation of the impacts of victim offender mediation.

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.

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.

Due to immigration the Dutch have made a significant contribution to the development of New Zealand, especially in the field of juvenile justice and adoption. As for New Zealand’s Youth Justice Service, the introduction of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in 1989 has been a landmark in New Zealand’s history of dealing with juvenile delinquency. While it was not designed as a restorative justice system, the current system is tuned towards restorative justice. Until then, New Zealand had a shameful history as far as the handling of juvenile delinquency is concerned. The Maori, whose youngsters were – and still are – overrepresented in juvenile statistics, heavily criticized this model, emphasizing the need to strengthen the bond between the (extended) family and the juvenile offender, as well as the need to provide for redress. In the same period, the United Nations Convention on Children’s Rights (UNCROC) was introduced (1989), the Act of 1989 paying tribute to the UNCROC. As the national juvenile justice system to some extent does not live up to the standards of the UNCROC, there remains room for improvement. However, black clouds gather over New Zealand’s juvenile justice system, for the present government has announced to be in favor of a punitive oriented policy; there is a call to get ‘tough on juvenile crime’. This policy, however, implies setting back the clock and endangers the current orientation on restorative justice, as well as the legal values set out by the UNCROC.

This article provides a perspective on the development of restorative justice practice in Northern Ireland. The island of Ireland has a standing history as to the use of restorative justice. In fact, the earliest restorative form of law dates from 2000 BCE, the so-called Brehon Laws. To date, Northern Ireland features as a divided society; over the past 35 years intercommunity conflict brought devastation and heartbreak to the health of the community. Nevertheless, initial soundings were heard as to how the practice of restorative justice might be re-introduced to Northern Ireland. Already in 1989, the Probation Board indicated its intention of piloting a Victim Offender Mediation Programme. From that time, serious attempts were undertaken to implement restorative justice within the North-Irish society. Initiatives were undertaken by Republican as well as Loyalist communities, both being eager to move away from violent community based justice. Special attention was given towards juvenile crime. In 2000 this interest in restorative justice led to a commitment from the North-Irish authorities to put restorative justice matters at the heart of the criminal justice system for young offenders. As a result, in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 the Youth Conference Service was initiated. Between 2003 and the present, Youth Conference Orders or Plans have been the most common disposals for adjudicated offenders up to eighteen years of age. The focus is on the parties resolving how the young person can make amends to the victim and what can be done to prevent further offending. All Agencies linked into the Youth Justice system recognize the special needs of young people. Recent figures show the numbers of young people going into youth custody in Northern Ireland have decreased due to the use of restorative justice models.

Just over thirty years ago now, on 12^th January 1977 to be precise, Sir Anthony Bottoms presented his Inaugural Lecture as Professor of Criminology at the University of Sheffield, UK. The full text of this almost prophetic Lecture was subsequently published in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice and reached a much wider audience. One of its central themes was the emerging tendency within British criminal justice policy to treat really serious offenders in a significantly different manner from their less serious counterparts with whom a more lenient approach might be justified. This tendency he described as penal bifurcation.There were two reasons why such an apparently logical approach might be found exceptionable: the first relates to the general principal of treating like cases similarly, and the second that the practice was proposed on the basis of the relative extent of social risk that might be claimed to differentiate serious from less serious offending. Bifurcation in both of these forms is evident in the use within some jurisdictions of extended and indeterminate sentences for public protection, and in many respects also within parole release considerations.The central proposition in relation to bifurcation within this article is, however, of a somewhat different nature. Restorative justice places considerable reliance upon offenders accepting responsibility for their offences, showing remorse for the harm done to victims in the form of genuine apology, and then making reparation either to the victim(s) directly, or to victims of crime more generally. These principles apply equally to serious and less serious offenders, though the extent of reparation should logically be greater as the crime increases in gravity.In an era of widely increasing penal populations it is apparent that these escalations result from increased severity of sentencing on the one hand, and from wider use of custody and lower thresholds for imposing it on the other. Both forms of resort to custody in sentencing are increasingly justified on the basis of public protection, and to act otherwise is perceived (and often promoted in the media) as being ‘soft on crime’. Politicians anxious to retain electoral credibility do not wish to be labelled as soft on crime, and actively seek to avoid such accusations by supporting increasingly punitive measures against offenders.One of the reasons why restorative justice has attracted only limited acceptance in the world of adult criminal justice is that it is perceived as a less punitive response to offending than the more traditional retributive punishment mode or its ‘justice model’ desert-based counterpart. In the span of this article I shall attempt to describe how, with a respectable measure of bifurcation, a model of reparative and restorative justice can be presented as a viable and optimistic alternative to the penal politics of retributive punishment and social protection. That it might bring with it the potential for reduced use of custody will be left to the reader to decide.