Since the beginning of 2020 mediation in penal cases (mediation in strafzaken) has officially become the preferred intervention for victim-offender mediation in the criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Although mediation in general has a sound theoretical framework, the methodological elaboration appears pluriform and somewhat limited. In practice mediators in penal cases operate conform their own personal and professional standards and preferences, apparently without tailor made methodology. This article describes the current methodological directions such as transformative or narrative mediation and seeks for useful references. As a part of restorative practice, mediation in penal cases seems to remain secluded from insights and methodology developed in the domain of restorative justice practices. Educational institutes providing trainings for mediators barely refer to this theoretical framework. Besides a methodological reconnaissance this article offers a fundamental comparison of mediation styles and interventions, but is above all an incentive to further methodological research and development.

In this article, an analysis is made of two response models for different forms of abuse and violence that occurred in the past on children in institutional settings. Two programmes are compared, as they operated during last 10 years in Belgium: on the one hand the Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse and violence in the Catholic Church at the national level, on the other hand the Commission for Recognition and Mediation for various types of abuse and violence in youth and educational institutions and other organisational contexts in the Flemish Community. Both models are analysed and compared at the conceptual and empirical level from a restorative justice approach, looking at the elements that may reveal a certain form of restorative justice and/or may contain lessons for the further development of restorative justice. The background and origins of both programmes are presented into detail, followed by a comparison with respect to the political options on the basis of their creation, the composition of their boards, their scope of application and their procedures. Some numbers and characteristics of cases dealt with are presented.
The analysis of both models points at the presence – in varying degrees – of important restorative justice elements as provided in the international literature. However, restorative justice standards are more prominent in the Flemish Commission for Recognition and Mediation as compared to the national Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse in the Church. Both programmes also demonstrate that restorative action is needed at different, mutually interwoven levels: the personal (micro) level, the institutional (meso) level and the societal (macro) level. At the institutional and societal level the transformative potential of the interventions is very much needed, but also most challenging in terms of the development of effective restorative methods.

This contribution advocates a fresh look at counteracting radicalization. Two frameworks are used for this. In the first place, that is the restorative justice that we have coined here as ‘making amends’. We need this normative framework because it provides clues for the prevention of ‘transgressing’ forms of radicalization, which can lead to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, we use an Activism of Hope framework, which states that we may and must resist social deprivation and injustice. After all, deprivation and injustice are the breeding ground for radicalization.

In the past twenty-five years, a lot of attention is paid to a more victim-aware and restorative justice focused policy in prisons in Belgium and The Netherlands, striving for a restorative culture and climate in the institutions (among prisoners and staff) and for more restorative practices like victim-awareness programs and mediation. The focus is primarily on the prison structure and culture, striving to create a more restorative prison culture and climate in the institutions. In this article we argue for a shift from this system-focused pursuit of ‘estorative detention’ to the restorative reintegration of prisoners at the individual level, and by this supporting their desistance from crime. We present a conceptual framework for restorative reintegration in and outside prison as a strengths-based approach, with attention to the structural and individual elements that supports their desistance from crime.

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.

Restorative Justice is not evident in cases of intimate partner violence, but it can take and does take place under certain conditions. Wolthuis and Lünnemann explain about the European research they coordinated in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK) on context and practicalities of the use of victim-offender mediation in such complex cases. Cases dealing with violence of mainly men against women and where power imbalances often play a role. That means that mediators, referrers and others involved should know about this complexity and the needs of participants. Austria and Finland turned out to have the most experienced working methods. Their models, good practices and challenges are presented as well as the main outcomes of the research. Interviews and focus groups in the countries gave additional insights. It resulted in a guide with minimum standards addressing the different stages of a mediation process with extra attention for safety and empowerment.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Seemingly a difficult concept, participation in restorative justice can be understood better once the notion is broadened and operationalized. Therefore a proposal will be made here to first broaden the meaning of participation beyond participation of stakeholders and ‘community’ in the process as it is generally understood in restorative justice literature, and second break down the concept of participation into five different levels: (1) involvement of the stakeholders and the ‘community’ in the restorative process; (2) participation of citizens as volunteer mediators/facilitators in the process; (3) self-referrals from citizens; (4) voluntary participation of experts in restorative justice organisations; (5) promotion from ex-victims of crime and ex-offenders. Based on this approach, in the end, the author opens up the discussion on the meaning of active citizenship for restorative justice in continental Europe. Before discussing how the broadening of the concept of participation is concretely envisioned, the author argues on the importance of prioritizing the notion of citizenship instead of ‘community’ in the continental European restorative justice discourse.

This article departs from a crime prevention perspective following the definition of crime prevention as adopted by the European Union Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN). This approach handles a broad notion of community involvement in crime prevention, including non-judicial measures and models of intervention. Through its participatory approaches, restorative justice has the potential of mobilising and reinforcing social capital and, therefore, of contributing to effective crime prevention and control. The community oriented approach is illustrated by the model of crime prevention and its possible connection to restorative justice as being developed in Hungary and promoted through various actions of the EUCPN.

On the basis of current definitions and approaches of restorative justice and crime prevention, and making use of a two-dimensional typology of crime prevention, this article develops a conceptual framework and seeks to offer points of connections and departure at the theoretical level between restorative justice practices and different models of offender-oriented, victim-oriented and community-oriented prevention. In order to face some of the present limitations of restorative justice, in particular the missing link to causes of crime at the societal-structural level, the author widens the perspective of restorative justice to the broader notion of ‘community justice’. The challenge for restorative justice is, then, to integrate polycentric problem-solving approaches into its operational models.

The author, reflecting upon both Bouverne-De Bie & Roose and Walgrave, deplores to some degree the fact that the Journal for Restorative Justice, from its foundation, has narrowed its focus and scope by making it a priority to attempt to influence the criminal justice system. Most of the conflicts and troubles between citizens never reach the criminal agencies and are dealt with by other methods, such as methods of social work, without approaching the police. The potential scope for influencing conflict-behavior is therefore immensely greater outside the sphere of the criminal law.