This article presents and critically discusses a new Recommendation on restorative justice (CM/Rec(2018)8) that was adopted on 3 October 2018 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This new regulation builds on the previous Recommendation No. R(99)19 on mediation in penal matters and recommends the governments of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe the adopt and implement the principles of restorative justice as described in the Appendix of the new Recommendation. These guidelines apply to national authorities and national agencies in general, and to judges, public prosecutors, police, prisons, probation, juvenile justice agencies, victim support services and restorative justice services in particular. The article presents the origins of the Recommendation, its contents and its meaning for restorative justice developments in Europe and beyond.

This article is based on research into the use of mediation in criminal cases at ZSM Midden-Nederland. It focusses on the question how referrals to mediation can be optimized. The research shows that there is much room for improvement and a broader deployment of mediation. Lack of knowledge of the criminal justice partners involved, leads to misconceptions about the mediation process, about which institution should be deployed, and about the (in)suitability of cases for mediation. This lack of knowledge seems to be greatest among the police, while they play an important role within ZSM. Moreover, Victim Support Netherlands has a dominant role in the choice whether or not to refer to mediation. The overall conclusion is that mediation is not yet sufficiently anchored in the criminal justice partners’ system.

How does the police deal with conflict resolution and (referrals to) mediation? Is this perceived as relevant within the new national police organization? This article elaborates on work processes within the National Police, including ZSM-settlements, the punitive aspects of police culture and the impoverishment of neighborhood-oriented police work. It is concluded that there is little room within the police for responsive approaches to crime and social unsafety. However, there are still police professionals who question ‘assembly line’-processing of criminal cases, support restorative justice strategies and try to improve the citizen-empowerment in neighbourhoods.

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.

This article discusses the willingness of the victim to judge the offender more mildly after the latter apologized for his wrongdoing and shows that he is involved in behavioral change. A large group of victims wants to help (young) perpetrators and offer them a second chance, even victims who have been treated violently. It is argued that these forms of compassion express a caring attitude, the wish that the offender will be rehabilitated and that a change in behaviour is more important than compensation. This attitude can also be referred to as ‘forbearance’, in terms that a less severe sanction is sufficient. This goodwill factor may well be the most important aspect of ‘doing justice’ in restorative meetings.

In this article the author discusses the book Anger and Forgiveness written by the well-known and influential American philosopher Martha Nussbaum. In the opinion of the author Anger and Forgiveness is a provocative and challenging book. In the book, Nussbaum makes a distinction between conditional and unconditional forgiveness, she relates conditional forgiveness to the logic of retribution and she disapproves retribution and, by extension, conditional forgiveness on moral grounds. Her disapproval of retribution and conditional forgiveness is related to her disapproval of (vindictive) anger, which in her opinion is intrinsic part of retribution and conditional forgiveness. According to Nussbaum, anger – transitional anger excluded – has to be replaced by unconditional love; only conduct that stems from unconditional love can be qualified as moral. Sometimes unconditional forgiveness can be seen as a form of unconditional love. Subsequently, Nussbaum applies her ideas on anger, retribution, forgiveness and love to the political domain, to which also criminal law belongs. Nussbaum pleads for a criminal law system empty of anger and retribution; in Nussbaum’s criminal law system there is only room for prevention, grace and human welfare – all stemming of unconditional love. Nussbaum’s Anger and Forgiveness offers an alternative view on concepts such as anger, retribution, forgiveness and love, concepts which are important within the context of criminal law and restorative justice. The author argues that, although the reader can certainly learn from Nussbaum’s ideas as explained in Anger and Forgiveness, the radicality of her ideas inevitably causes criticism; Nussbaum holds a very idealistic perspective that neglects the human condition. Instead of ruling out anger and retribution, the author advocates a criminal law system that is capable of canalizing anger and transforming vindictive anger into transitional anger. Furthermore, he pleads for a criminal law system that makes forgiveness possible without forcing victims to forgive. For that reason restorative justice practices need to be incorporated into the criminal law system. In sum, to a certain extent Nussbaum and Claessen share the same moral ideals, but they disagree on the path leading tot those ideals. Where Nussbaum opts for a top-down approach, Claessen opts for a bottom-up approach which respects the human condition.

Whether and under which conditions restorative justice can be applied to cases of corporate violence is explored starting from the phenomenon of corporate violence, defined as acts committed by corporations in the course of their regular activities but with harmful consequences for people’s health. Specific characteristics of different types of corporate violence are presented, as well as victims’ needs, experiences and expectations. The applicability of restorative justice, but also the need of its rethinking, is discussed through an analysis of the role of its key actors and the concepts of participation and restoration.

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.