The first part of this article presents three academic theories on radicalisation: Moghaddam’s staircase model of radicalisation, Galtung’s typology of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence), and Staub’s psycho-educative approach. The core of Staub’s approach is that in conflict periods, people can be psychologically manipulated through their own fears, insecurities and unresolved traumas. Therefore, psycho-education and the empowerment of people are highly necessary to stimulate citizens to function as active bystanders when they are confronted with wrongdoing. In the second part of this article some promising approaches are pres­en‍ted which might increase personal and social resilience. The role of narratives in understanding experiences and changing identities is discussed. Radio La Benevolencija in Rwanda uses the power of storytel­l‍ing to stimulate resilience among the population. In the concluding paragraph a two-pronged strategy on radicalization is presented. This positive criminological perspective aims to promote active bystandership, participation and resilience.

This article explores victimisation by corporate violence on the basis of case studies, interviews and focus groups with victims and professionals carried out in the European project Victims and Corporations. The typical characteristics of victimisation by corporate violence are described, as well as the harmful effects for victims and their social context. The problematic aspects of tackling corporate violence through criminal procedures lead to a first evaluation of the possible contribution of restorative processes to this field on the basis of interviews and a focus group with restorative justice professionals.

The article provides a description of the issues and considerrations facing Flemish victim-offender mediators on the job. Instead of focusing on professinal risks and caveats present within victim-offender mediation, the authors concentrate on the positive concept of ‘enabling high quality mediations’. A description is given of the frames that are felt to be helpful towards mediators, stressing the need to act with due creativity if needed. Moreover, in order to enable high quality victim-offender mediations, conditions need to be met, more specifically a common acknowledgment of the need for teamwork. The latter implies conditions such a sound legal basis, a deontological code, formal procedures and constant interaction with practice.

Penal mediation is currently gaining ground within the Dutch criminal law system. The practice of penal mediation is still young, however, and therefore vulnerable. Common criminal practice as well as legislation are not yet thoroughly compatible with practicing penal mediation. The authors of this contribution explore some of the dangers mediators in penal cases face while drafting party-agreements that are to be taken into consideration by the judicial authorities.
The article identifies the responsibilities of penal mediators who at the same time serve the interests of victims and offenders as well as take into account expectations judicial authorities might have. The responsibility of penal mediators is especially delicate whenever mediation parties seek to influence the outcome of the criminal lawsuit through mediation. Criminal law is a highly-regulated field, which – albeit unconsciously – seduces the mediator his- or herself to lose track of the main restorative goals of the mediation process. The authors point out some of the traps penal mediators can and should avoid. The article for instance elaborates the inadequacy of current Dutch regulations to arrange financial compensations and damages through penal mediation. Also, the article enumerates examples of over-juridification as well as the lacking of it. Furthermore, avoidable pitfalls such as McDonald-icing of penal mediation, the uselessness of so-called sunny-weather-vouchers, the dangers of copy-paste-agreements and – the worst – putting the height of their own – currently fixed – fees above party interests, are being addressed.

In this contribution, the justification of restorative practices in prison is first discussed from a normative perspective. On the basis of Lippke’s retributive theory of imprisonment it is argued that modern, humane retributive sanctioning entails an obligation to provide prisoners with opportunities to engage in restorative practices. Second, restorative practices in prison are examined from the perspective of possible impacts on the empowerment of prisoners and their experience to move away from crime and do good. Finally, it is argued that in order to yield positive effects, restorative practices in prison need to be supported by a safe and healthy living environment.

This article describes some victim-related research results of both an action research into the Flemish practice of conferencing, as well as the results of a European comparative research on victim-offender mediation. Through these results, we examine what victims think of restorative justice and why they choose (not) to participate. This way, we aim to fill a certain gap in restorative justice literature especially when it comes to non-participating victims (Van Camp & Wemmers, 2016), a group which remains hard to interview.

In this short paper, a summarising report is presented on a two years action-research project (2011-2013) co-funded by the European Union on how to conceive and implement peacemaking circles in a European legal and cultural environment. In a first part of the paper, the background and reasons for implementing peacemaking circles are explained, and attention is given to their added value as compared to the models of victim-offender mediation and conferencing. After a short presentation of the action-research set-up in three countries (Belgium, Germany and Hungary), a selective list of critical issues is discussed as they have been experienced during the project: the selection of files and the preparatory phase of a peacemaking circle, the running of the circle meeting and the meaning of some of its operational principles (the role of the circle keeper, the function of rituals, the talking piece, the decision making process, …). Also the involvement of the community at its different levels - from the community of care to the macro-community - is discussed, as well as how the direct conflict parties experience the presence of these communities. A general conclusion is that a model of peacemaking circles can be implemented in a European context effectively, but developing a methodology on how to involve members of the wider community remains a challenge.

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.

In various neighbourhoods in Amsterdam tensions between their inhabitants are felt. Inhabitants are irritated by the behaviour of youths, polluted streets and nuisance from their neighbours. They are incapable or do not dare to address each other about this and to solve their problems by themselves. Instead they look towards the authorities for help, which are dealing with insufficient capacity. As a consequence it is getting harder and harder to address and correct each other. Small problems and conflicts develop into big and complex issues.
Amsterdam authorities use various policy tools, pointed at both increasing its own decisiveness and credibility and at mobilizing civilians. Those policies are the Bully-approach, Neighbourhood Safety Teams, Self-protective Neighbourhoods and stimulation of civic initiatives. The reality is stubborn, but also shows bottom-up examples which function succesfully and independently from government approaches and programs. In these examples civic force plays an important role.
These examples, knowledge and persons who play key roles can be brought together and are useful in the search for solutions of problems in other situations. This is most effective when civilians attack issues and are integrated with worthy instruments from the authorities. This will gradually enable a reconstruction of the current system and a social reacquisition of neighbourhoods. In this social ‘football ‘ team civilians would be the strikers, backed up by a strong and professional governmental midfield. This article consecutively defines the current problem, regards the governmental instruments, bottom-up initiatives. It ends up with the suggestion for the construction of a good teamplay between policy tools en bottom up initiatives.

The author discusses the proposals done by Richard Korver, a Dutch victim-solicitor, with regard to the legal position of the victim in the Dutch penal procedure. They amount to making the victim a fully equipped party to the procedure with – as it were – the same arms as the offender and his solicitor has. These proposals include an autonomous right to appeal against the verdict in first instance, a right to make a victim statement of opinion, the right to rebuke the bench, and the right to be heard in almost every procedural and substantial decision of any authority in the penal process and in the execution of punishment. The authors comment is that these proposals, when realized, will imply an intensification of the polarized legal debate in the penal procedure, with more risks of secondary victimization. The problem is not that the defendant will oppose two prosecutors, but that the victim will find the public prosecutor not on his side when the latter does his job as he should: serving the interests of justice. The inquisitorial procedure does allow for participation of victims, but only in so far as this participation can serve the interests of establishing the truth of the matter and determining proportionate and equal punishment. Meanwhile the risk of instrumentalising the victim and his needs in interests in punitive strategies exists. Restorative practices offer a much better context for an assertive victim to defend his interests and satisfy his needs, staying out of a debate in which the measure of punishment functions as the yardstick of his suffering. Regular civil law procedures could be the second option and criminal procedures should be relegated again to their rightful place as ultima ratio.

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.

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.

Neighbourhood mediation has been practiced more than fifteen years in the Netherlands. In 2010 there was neighbourhood mediation in 160 municipalities. More than 7000 cases were handled. Volunteer mediators try to break through communication blockades and teach their neighbours to make agreements. They are successful in two thirds of the cases. This means that about 20.000 directly involved family members are participating in successful cases. The authors discuss some conditions, results and the central principles of Dutch neighbourhood mediation: communication on an equal basis, impartiality, responsibility to solve conflicts, autonomous action and the enhancement of security and quality of life.