Against the background of a discussion of classical and modern concepts of punishment, the first implying the imposition of suffering as essence and the second encompassing all varieties of sanctions implying restrictions but not necessarily some form of suffering the author rejects the suggestion of the second concept, that punishment should be defined without any reference to imposing suffering. There are conceptual advantages to sticking to the classical definition of punishment, such as the fact that it is clearly differentiated from the concept of measurements, which are sanctions imposed without any demand of ‘guilt’ on the side of a perpetrator. Also there are good reasons to maintain the element of (imposition of ) ‘intended pain’ in the concept of punishment, but it is this element – the intentional imposition of pain and suffering – that makes the author reject the activity of punishing as unethical. Non-violent sanctions are conceivable and feasible and should on ethical grounds be preferred. This is explored with reference to the work of Tähtinen. In close connection with this idea the author argues that we should redefine criminal justice (in the Dutch language: ‘strafrecht’ meaning the right to punish and laws regarding punishment) to mean that it is the discipline that responds to crimes and offences, without any defining reference to punishment (‘misdaadrecht’, meaning the laws regarding ((responding to)) crime).

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.

Considerable political pressure is currently being brought to impose severe punishments, and it is frequently suggested that these punishments would enhance the wellbeing of victims and achieve ‘closure’. Populist images, such as ‘victims have a right to revenge’ have gained great influence. To what extent would therapeutic professionals have to support victim needs that are shaped within such punitive contexts? In this paper it is first argued that revenge embraces ambivalent meanings. Although avengers are lauded in the popular imagination, feelings of revenge are still viewed as ethically unacceptable. In recent decades, however, a penal populism has been gaining ground as a result of which revenge was stripped of its pejorative associations. In a punitive climate it is believed that victims would demand harsher penalties and that such penalties would promote closure and peace. Research findings show however that revenge may bring temporary relief, but anger rumination precludes healing. Subsequently the question is discussed whether two different forms of victim participation, victim impact statements and restorative justice conferences, might temper revenge feelings. Because VIS-participants (dealing with high levels of anger and fear) believe that their statements will culminate in longer sentences, they are generally frustrated that the imposed sentence is not tough enough. After the procedure they keep on viewing the offender as a malign person. Restorative procedures generally show an opposite picture. Finally this paper is criticizing the tendency of victim-oriented therapeutization within criminal justice and restorative justice. It is argued that the voice of the victim and the process of emotional healing should be separated strictly.

The tendency to revalorise emotions in the response to offending, seems to face a dilemma. On the one hand, experiencing crime and reacting to it inevitably are imbued by emotion. On the other hand, giving way to emotions in responding to crime entails the risks of disproportionate and unequal justice. This article argues that there is a fundamental difference between the emotions promoted to be included in the response to crime and the emotions feared as a risk to overwhelm good and proportionate jurisprudence. The first ones focus on the needs of the immediate stakeholders of the offence and seek their (re-)inclusion. The second type of emotions focuses on the criminal act and seeks to keep the threat it represents under control through punishment and incapacitation. It is a socio-ethical choice to promote the inclusionary approach. Whereas the rehabilitative approach has addressed the needs of the offenders only, the restorative tendency addresses the needs of both the victim and the offenders in a more balanced way. This balance also helps to avoid that respectful responses to crime degrade into norm erosion. The option for revalorising inclusionary emotions in the response to crime through restorative justice is located as a next phase in the civilisation process, described originally by Elias.

In this article attention is paid to the thoughts and feelings which underlie criminal law and restorative justice, as well as the question whether those thoughts and feelings have to be regarded as rational or irrational. For this purpose, the author has firstly examined the relationship between thinking and feeling from the perspective of the so-called cognitive emotion theory as put forth by the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the Dutch philosopher Mirjam van Reijen. In addition, this contribution also addresses the ideas of the Stoics, Spinoza and Schopenhauer, since the aforementioned theory goes back on the ideas of these philosophers. These philosophers depart from the view on man and world in which interconnectedness plays an important role – as the opposite of separateness. This view which reflects the mystic-religious perspective on man and world forms an important connecting thread in this article, as this turns out to have direct consequences for the idea about the (ir)rationality of certain thoughts and feelings, as well as for the (ir)rationality of criminal law and restorative justice. Special attention is paid to emotions that are relevant within the context of criminal law and restorative justice – which include anger, resentment, hatred, fear and compassion. After having explained – on the basis of the cognitive emotion theory – how thinking and feeling relate to each other and which thoughts and feelings – on the basis of the perspective of interconnectedness – have to be considered as (ir)rational, the article examines whether punishment is (ir)rational and whether the regular theories which legitimate punishment (i.e. retribution and prevention theories) are ‘rationalities of something irrational’. Furthermore, it is assessed whether the thoughts and feelings behind restorative justice are (ir)rational. The article concludes with a suggestion in which the main findings of this contribution are summarized, in order to stimulate discussion.

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.

The author made a tour throughout the country to see how people fulfill their social responsibility in the process of creating a normal and stabile situation again after a criminal offence, after the use of (domestic) violence. Yearly 37.000 women are victims of serious to very serious forms of violence in the Netherlands. It turns out that several initiatives have been developed in the last few years in different parts of the country whereby networks of people are used to stop violence and to look for ways to continue relationships or contacts. The article contains descriptions of powerful conferences. For example, one between two Turkish families who had years of conflicts, partly through two 16-year-old daughters. It almost turned into blood revenge and serious violence. Talking to each other in an organized and well prepared setting however resulted in a positive situation for all parties. Social systems and networking turn out to be the key factors for restoration.

The Austrian social historian Christa Pelikan wrote in 2009 an article with the following title: On the efficacy of Victim-Offender-Mediation in cases of partnership violence in Austria, or: Men don’t get better, but women get stronger: Is it still true?
It contains outcomes of an empirical study which reads in short: The efficacy of VOM in cases partnership violence is to a large part due to the empowerment of the women victims, but partly, albeit to a smaller percentage, also due to an inner change, to insight and following from that a change of behaviour on the side of the male perpetrators. These achievements should be understood as part of a comprehensive societal change – a change of expectations regarding the use of violence in intimate partnerships. The research presented is to be perceived against the background of another study carried out 10 years before; its title was: ‘The efficacy of criminal law interventions in cases of partnership violence: Comparing The Criminal Trial and Victim-Offender Mediation (out of court offence compensation – ATA)’. Quantitaive and qualitative research is used, as well as a description of cases. In our journal a Dutch translation of this relevant (2009) article on RJ and domestic violence has been published.

Topical developments regarding the use of restorative justice in the Netherlands are discussed. Several initiatives have been taken, showing a genuine interest in the benefits of the use of restorative justice. However, there are underlying risks for a managerial use of restorative justice. Momentarily Dutch criminal justice policy features a shift towards settlement by the Public Prosecution, implying a use of restorative justice in the context of consensual settlement. However, there are no signs directing towards an intrinsic interest for the concept of restorative justice by the criminal justice authorities. Notwithstanding the legislator having started a fundamental revision of the Dutch Code of Penal Procedure, there are no intentions known to acknowledge restorative justice arrangements to be part of the regular penal procedures and sanctions. Nevertheless, incorporating the use of restorative justice arrangements requires a systematic implementation of restorative justice arrangements.

In restorative thinking it is often assumed that the involvement of volunteers, almost naturally, flows from its values and aims. But are there really convincing arguments that account for, justify or even necessitate an active policy on volunteering in restorative justice practices?This contribution focuses on the moderate view on restorative justice as developed in the Belgian context. It is argued that this approach offers a variety of reasons for developing a volunteers-programme. Two central issues in a moderate view on restorative justice are essential to understand the value of volunteering in restorative justice practices. Such a view sees 1) crime as a multi-layered phenomenon, and 2) takes participative and communicative justice as its central aim.