Some believe that the credibility of restorative justice can be increased if more attention is given to the quality of the mediator, as well as methods to select people with the right profile or by training. At first glance this seems a legitimate aim: mediation services should offer quality. Reflecting on practical experience and research into mediation between offenders and victims in Flanders, the author problematizes these assumptions. The quest for tangible quality to ensure ‘credibility’ refers to a neo-liberal approach aimed at reducing risks and promoting the client’s satisfaction. In this article the author confronts the apolitical approach of client satisfaction with alternative ideas about (restorative) justice. Ideally, the mediator is critical of established (legal) authorities and professional expertise. Mediation is political in nature, even if the mediator relies on neutrality. The mediator must be aware of his – inevitable – political stance and should be ready to be interrogated on this matter.

The authors focus on the restorative justice policies of the city of Utrecht. The Utrecht Mediation Model is a framework in which so called Peaceful Schools and Peaceful Community organisations work together with inhabitants, youth, police officers, public prosecutors and mediators (both voluntary mediators and professional registered mediators). The authors discuss some of the benefits of this large-scale collaboration in Utrecht-neighbourhoods. The added value of the Model is especially felt in so-called Large and Xtra-Large community conflicts. The mediators work together with police officers in order to realise peaceful solutions, while safeguarding the autonomy and independence that both professions require. The authors also discuss some of the competences of the professionals involved. Finally they address the financial revenues of the Model; public spending is relocated from repressive to restorative strategies.

The mediator in criminal cases operates in special setting which requires specific competences: knowledge of the field of criminal law, knowledge of psychiatric/psychological problems and – if necessary – be able to consult a network of experts in that field, being prepared to operate in complex offender-victim relations and also to deal with high-escalated conflicts. These requirements raise a number of questions regarding the rules of the Dutch mediation federation, which are not designed to be used in the context of criminal law. Mediators in criminal cases are in need of other rules and pre-conditions to fulfil their work adequately.