In the past decades the social intuitionist approach to moral psychology has eclipsed rationalist models. The social intutionist approach considers emotions to be a driving force in moral judgement, while reasoning most often functions as a post hoc rationalisation of the initial emotion. This article argues that the social intutionist approach is also applicable to the choice and preferences victims make and have while navigating the criminal justice system. This is illustrated through two recent evaluations of victims experiences in the Netherlands: an evaluation of the Dutch victim-offender encounters and the oral and written Victim Impact Statements (VIS). It is shown that participation in the former programme is a function of low emotional impact, while participants in the VIS-schemes present with high levels of anxiety and anger, and exhibit signs of possible posttraumatic disorder. The implications of these findings are discussed and framed in terms of the social intuitionist model of moral psychology.

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.

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 contribution aims to understand the right things when doing justice. Restorative justice is an approach to crime that, properly pursued, focuses not merely on the lawbreaking behaviour of the offender but also on the effect of that behaviour on victims and communities. Restorative justice seeks accountability on the part of offenders in such a way that the harm done can be addressed and repaired to the extent possible. Restorative justice allows the parties to a crime to participate directly and voluntarily in considering the harm and fashioning a resolution that addresses that harm. It is also important that the right thing about restorative justice and about democracy be understood. Crucial is respectful dialogue during which people who disagree listen to one another, speak from the heart and mind, identify common values, recognize the importance of the others, and work toward a common solution.