Samenvatting

Responding to criticism, stating that constructive interventions can only be understood as proven to reduce recidivism, the author clarifies what she conceives as constructive answers to juvenile delinquency, against the background of the Belgian developments in law and policy. ‘Constructive’ has always implied the active participation of those citizens directly involved, care and attention for the victims needs, and the avoidance of placement in a closed institution. The contribution to the quality of social life by making restorative gestures was considered to be of importance.To measure whether conferencing with juveniles would work the criterion of reducing recidivism is important, but not exclusive. Other criteria, which come forward in qualitative research, are at least as important.The Dutch seem to take managerialism in the sense of implementing only what can be proven to work in a preconceived way – only in terms of reducing recidivism – much more seriously than the Belgians do.In Belgium the traditional stress on protection of juveniles has not changed, and the newly introduced family group conferences were accepted as valuable procedures. Reducing recidivism is however not unimportant and more and more RJ-research is addressing this issue. There are indications that recidivism can be reduced by conferencing procedures and their resolutions. Instead of technocratic managerialism one should be interested in the ‘moral performance’ of a legal system, looking for what really matters.