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).

Whereas the starting point of victimisation is clearly marked by a co-occurence of harm and wrong, the end of victimhood is not as straightforward. What is more, because victimisation is a social construct, the label of ‘victim’ is established in social interaction, meaning that third party observers have a role in the understanding of the (limits of) victimisation. In this article, I suggest that third party observers may understand attempts at restorative justice, more specifically, an apology, as an indicator of recovery of the victim. If this is true, they may expect the victim to decrease emotional display that signals victimisation after receiving an apology. If the victim continues to display similar signals of victimisation, this may result in negative victim-oriented responses. In an exploratory repeated measures vignette study, I show that third party observers evaluate the victim less positively after the victim received an apology than before they received this apology. The results imply that in understanding the (limits of) victimhood, we should consider the dynamics between victim and offender but also a broader circle of third-party observers. This is also important for restorative justice.