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.

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.

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.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.