This article discusses the main features of the draft version of the new Criminal Code for the Netherlands Antilles, which was completely revised and updated in accordance with the latest case law and applicable international treaties. The draft legislation abolishes the dead penalty and minimum sentences. Also it introduces community services, a travel ban, an extension of self-defense in the direct vicinity of one's house and the obligatory review of life-long jail sentences after twenty years. Furthermore it adapts and modernizes the presently existing fines and criminal law for minors. The draft legislation is pending the recommendations of the Advice Council and will be presented to the Parliament thereafter.

The contribution informs about some of the activities and the philosophy of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, a non-governmental organisation for the care for prisoners, member of the Prison Fellowship International. Holding a person responsible for his or her criminal conduct does not only mean punishment, but also individualizing the person as a person, with his or her own life, history and future. The stay in prison should help the person to return into society as a citizen with an equal status, rehabilitated by his punishment. But social reality is far removed from this ideal. The volunteers of Gevangenenzorg Nederland try to bring closer a form or charitable justice, focussing not so much on the risks that a person may be perceived to pose, but much more on the healthy and socially positive talents of the detainee, against the background of the ‘good lives model’ of Ward and Maruna (2007). The article describes the workshop offered to detainees ‘Speaking of guilt, remorse, victims and society’, wherein participants can investigate and discover in a systematic way their own degree and type of guilt and responsibilities and the avenues that might be available to express remorse and to make amends with victims and society. Family members or other significant others are called in in the stage of concluding the course with presenting ‘restorative gestures’ of any personal kind. Care after leaving the prison is offered and planned, hoping to facilitate a fully rehabilitated reintegration into society.

In this article the author summarizes the main arguments for and notions of a maximalist conception of restorative justice, as developed in his latest book: Restorative Justice, Self-interest and Responsible Citizenship.While using a rather limited, goal-oriented definition of RJ as ‘an option for doing justice after the occurrence of an offence that is primarily oriented towards repairing the individual, relational and social harm caused by that offence’, Walgrave aims at developing a full blown alternative for penal justice. In the restorative system it should also be possible to impose sanctions, when deliberative processes of mediation and conferencing are not feasible, although the latter have, of course, the greatest chance of achieving restoration.The sanctions of restorative justice are not punishments, because any intention to impose suffering is lacking at the side of the sentencing authorities. But RJ can be seen as a form of inverted retributivism, in the sense that the offender pays his dues back to the victim and the society, to a degree that has to be acceptable to all involved, and seeking a fair amount of proportionality that does not impose unrealistic or unfair obligations. Principles of due process of law should be adapted to fit the restorative process. The high degree of participation in restorative justice serves democracy and so should criminology, by studying the ways in which social capital can be increased.The concept of ‘common self-interest’ is explained as the fundamental understanding that self-interests are best served by serving the common self-interest in as far as that provides full possibilities of deployment to everyone.

Developmental trajectories are estimated of 147 high-risk girls from 12 to 32, based on conviction data. Four trajectories are identified: adolescence-limited, low frequency desisting, high frequency desisting, late onset. Despite their high delinquency risk, only few girls developed a long-term criminal career. Girls in the trajectories differ with regard to intelligence, self-concept, social skills, aggression, personality disorders, and divorced parents. For each trajectory a profile is given, based on type of offences, personality and background characteristics.

Recidivism after a community service is compared to recidivism after imprisonment in a matched sample of adult Dutch offenders. We use longitudinal, official record data to compare recidivism over a maximum of eight years. ‘Propensity score matching’ and ‘matching by variable’ are used to take selection-effects into account. After a community service offenders turn out to recidivate less than after a prison sanction.

Fifty years ago Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, the Dutch Journal for Criminology, appeared for the first time. It has now developed into a peer reviewed journal with quantitative and qualitative research of high quality. Youth and life course criminology, research into organised and organisational crime, criminographical research, and research into violence are strongly represented nowadays. Changes in the journal reflect more general developments in criminology in the Netherlands and Belgium. In the last 10-15 years the discipline has become more internationally oriented and professional, and scientific backgrounds of criminologists have become more diverse.

This article reports the findings of a series of interviews with a juvenile judge, a public prosecutor and a judge who operates during the administration of the prison sentence. Their role is inquired as this appears in the practices of victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and victim oriented initiatives during the implementation of the prison sentence. The interviews relate to developments in the Flemish and Brussels region of Belgium and took place against the background of previous findings from research and practice. First, the (legal) context in which public prosecutors and judges are entering into contact with restorative practices is presented. Their role in offering or starting up different types of mediation and conferencing are discussed into detail. Also, the way in which the victim can participate in the administration of the prison sentence is dealt with. As a next step, the role of public prosecutors and judges after mediation or conferencing has taken place is analysed. To which extent can or should they take the outcome of restorative or victim oriented practices into account in further decision making processes? Furthermore attention is given to the relevance and applicability of important restorative justice principles such as voluntary participation and confidentiality when the case goes through the criminal justice process. The article ends with some general evaluative findings on the attitudes and the support of legal professionals towards restorative justice and restorative practices.

Rechters leggen straffen op. Maar in België worden gevangenisstraffen tot zes maanden vaak niet uitgevoerd. In de andere gevallen komt het gros van de veroordeelden voor strafeinde vrij. In welke mate hebben ze kennis van de strafuitvoering? En hoe gaan rechters hier mee om? Beïnvloedt een mogelijke vervroegde invrijheidstelling of niet-uitvoering van de straf hun strafbepaling? Gaan ze met andere woorden langere straffen opleggen om te compenseren voor deze niet – of gedeeltelijke uitvoering van de gevangenisstraf?Om deze vragen te beantwoorden lichten de auteurs eerst het (complexe) Belgische invrijheidsstellingsbeleid toe en wordt er stil gestaan bij de in 2007 opgerichte strafuitvoeringsrechtbanken. Vervolgens wordt op basis van survey-onderzoek, individuele en groepsinterviews met Belgische rechters hun visie op de strafuitvoering in kaart gebracht en de argumentaties met betrekking tot al dan niet compensatorisch gedrag besproken. Het gebruik van verschillende bevragingstechnieken zet de auteurs ook aan tot enkele methodologische reflecties omtrent de onderzoekbaarheid van dit vraagstuk.

In Western languages those affected by crime are universally labelled as the sacrificed ones. This label is inspired by the suffering of Jesus Christ and evokes images of helplessness and meekness. It acts as hidden justification for the marginal, self-effacing role of victims in criminal procedure and restorative justice. The author argues for deconstruction of the stereotypical victim label and the creation of more space in criminal procedure for victims as autonomous parties. In his view the recent innovation in Dutch law of a limited Victim Impact Statement still gives victims insufficient voice. He also argues for a reconceptualisation of restorative justice practices as a supplement to the criminal trial rather than as a substitute.

Inzicht in de rechterlijke straftoemetingsbeslissing is belangrijk voor de verdachte en de legitimiteit van het strafsysteem. Er is veel aandacht voor verbetering van de schriftelijke strafmotivering, maar niet voor de mondelinge. Maakt de rechter daarin wel duidelijk waarom hij een bepaalde straf oplegt?Na observatie van 86 politierechterzaken bleken factoren zoals geslacht, leeftijd, werksituatie en recidiverisico vaak wel ter zitting besproken te worden, maar niet (of zelden) terug te komen in de mondelinge motivering van de rechter. De rechter informeert dus vaak wel naar de omstandigheden van de verdachte, maar wat hij nu uiteindelijk met deze informatie doet, blijft onduidelijk.

Based on a prize-winning master thesis in criminology, this article describes how the Rwandan Government chose to bring to justice all suspects of (crimes during) the 1994 genocide. Accordingly, it was decided to turn to Gacaca, the traditional Rwandan method of dispute resolution, in order to reach reconciliation as well as justice. A field study indicates that, when asked whether they think Gacaca can lead to reconciliation and justice, the majority of Rwandans think it can. However, six determinants of reconciliation have been deduced from the interviews. Because Gacaca can only have a clear positive impact on one of these factors – the need to meet – Gacaca can not be considered as an appropriate mechanism to achieve reconciliation in Rwanda. It also appears that justice is not a determinant for reconciliation.