At first glance, the adventure of restorative justice (RJ) in Belgium can be considered a real success story. At the turn of the 21st century, programmes oriented towards this justice model officially determined the criminal justice agenda. What were the key ideas that led to the conceptualisation of restorative justice in Belgium? Who were the main actors and agencies that carried them out? What were the main issues that led to the institutionalisation of restorative justice? What are the effects of its implementation on the Belgian criminal justice system in general? This article strives to present the main findings of a study on the basis of an extensive data collection effort and analysis targeting discourses and practices created by actors from the Belgian academic, scientific, political, administrative, social work and judicial spheres from the 1980s to 2015. |
Search result: 2 articles
Year 2018 xArticle |
The adventure of the institutionalisation of restorative justice in Belgium |
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 2 2018 |
Keywords | Restorative justice, institutionalisation, penal change, Belgium |
Authors | Anne Lemonne |
AbstractAuthor's information |
Article |
|
Journal | The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 1 2018 |
Keywords | Adult reparation panels, meso-community of care, concern and accountability, reintegration, restoration, surrogate familial bonds |
Authors | Darren J. McStravick |
AbstractAuthor's information |
The community paradigm is continually cited as an important influence within restorative practices. However, this influence has not been sufficiently clarified. This article seeks to answer this conundrum by identifying a novel meso-community of care, concern and accountability that has been emerging as part of adult reparation panel procedures. This offender-centric community consists of traditionally secondary justice stakeholders led by criminal justice representative professionals including police officers and probation officials. It also includes lay volunteers and reparation programme officials dependent on state funding and cooperation. Professionalised panellists have led the development of surrogate familial bonds with offenders through the incorporation of a welfare ethos as part of case discourses. This care and concern approach has increased opportunities within case agreements for successful reintegration and rehabilitation. However, this article also acknowledges some concerns within panel processes in that, by attempting to increase accountability for harms caused, there is a danger that panellists are blurring the restorative lines between rehabilitation and genuine restoration and reparation. |