This contribution seeks to bring together three themes in a descriptive and exploratory manner: (a) community service orders, (b) traffic offences and (c) restorative justice; the Dutch situation is central. To this end, the Dutch legal regulation regarding community service orders is first explained. Attention is also paid to existing empirical research on the effectiveness of community service orders in terms of reduction of recidivism (section 2). Furthermore, the sanctioning of traffic offences is discussed as well as the consequences for this of the current bill that seeks to sharpen criminal liability for serious traffic offences (section 3). Subsequently, it is examined which restorative justice provisions or modalities are available and how restorative community service orders are and can be designed (section 4). Finally, I describe my ideal when it comes to the sanctioning of traffic offences in the form of a continuum in which a special role is reserved for restorative community service orders (section 5). The contribution ends with a conclusion (section 6).

Whereas the starting point of victimisation is clearly marked by a co-occurence of harm and wrong, the end of victimhood is not as straightforward. What is more, because victimisation is a social construct, the label of ‘victim’ is established in social interaction, meaning that third party observers have a role in the understanding of the (limits of) victimisation. In this article, I suggest that third party observers may understand attempts at restorative justice, more specifically, an apology, as an indicator of recovery of the victim. If this is true, they may expect the victim to decrease emotional display that signals victimisation after receiving an apology. If the victim continues to display similar signals of victimisation, this may result in negative victim-oriented responses. In an exploratory repeated measures vignette study, I show that third party observers evaluate the victim less positively after the victim received an apology than before they received this apology. The results imply that in understanding the (limits of) victimhood, we should consider the dynamics between victim and offender but also a broader circle of third-party observers. This is also important for restorative justice.

The authors discuss reparations, with particular attention to programs launched to do justice to the victims of the Holocaust. While focusing on the compensation scheme of the Dutch Railways to the victims of the transports during the Second World War, they examine in which respects the suffering and victimization of some victim groups are not or insufficiently recognized. They compare the establishment of the compensation scheme and the procedure for repayment with findings from victimological research into the recognition of victimization and reparation, including the symbolic value of compensation, recognition of suffering, inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders, and victim participation. The analysis concludes with a few considerations about how secondary victimization could have been prevented.

Compared to victims, relatively little is known about the role of offenders’ emotions, needs and intentions in their (voluntary) decision to participate in victim-offender mediation (VOM). Insight into this decision process among offenders is important, as it may explain (part of) the positive outcomes participation in VOM can have for them, as well as for victims. Based on the work of Shnabel and Nadler (2008; 2015), we predicted that the need to restore their moral image is an important, underlying explanation for why offenders participate in VOM. To test this, we sampled 91 victim-offender mediation cases from the Dutch mediation agency Perpectief Herstelbemiddeling based on pre-defined characteristics. We approached the mediators who handled these cases and asked them to indicate the emotions, need to restore the moral image and intentions of the offenders in these cases. Consequently, we examined how these variables predicted offenders’ actual willingness to participate (or not) in these cases. Results indicated that the need to restore the moral image is indeed an important underlying factor in offenders’ decision to participate in VOM: according to mediators’ answers, offenders who felt more remorse about their crime, felt a stronger need to restore their moral image, which in turn predicted a stronger intention to apologize and help the victim. This intention to apologize and help emerged as the strongest, direct predictor of offenders’ willingness to participate. The relevance of Shnabel and Nadler’s needs-based model of reconciliation for VOM is discussed as well as important future research questions that remain.

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.

In recent years, measures have been taken to involve victims in the Netherlands more in the criminal proceedings of their offenses. This development, has led the three Dutch probation organizations (together 3RO) to aim for a more victim focused and restorative oriented approach with their clients. Two reports have been written to aid this victim-oriented approach within probation services. This contribution reflects on these reports and provides additions based on scientific literature. Both reports offer a good overview of existing practices and approaches to work in a more victim focused and restorative way, which can help to increase awareness among probation workers. The additions concern research about the positive outcomes of organizing contact between offenders and victims from unrelated crimes and new research findings concerning the role of feelings of guilt and shame. In addition, consciously talking and acknowledging clients’ victimization is presented as an essential mechanism to create willingness among them to consider the experiences of (their) victims, especially for those who are initially unwilling to do so.