This article is an analysis of about 350 decisions of Dutch criminal courts since mediation was introduced as an instrument in criminal law (art. 51h of the Dutch criminal code). It appears that mediation not only benefits the offender in terms of reduction of punishment, but also has significant effects on other aspects of the domain of criminal justice. For example on complaints about the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute a suspect, the eligibility of the Public Prosecutor in a criminal procedure, claims for compensation of the victim, compensation for damage of the offender being in preventive custody, and costs of the offender for a lawyer to defend him in a criminal procedure. Although much progress can be made in applying mediation in criminal procedures, it is concluded that mediation is now an important form of restorative justice in the Dutch criminal justice system.

This essay is a scientific reflection on Leuven Restorative City (LRC). The cities, which present themselves as ‘restorative cities’, aim to ensure that restoration continues to nestle in the capillaries of our society. The article argues that realizing the LRC-promise requires restorative thinking through the meso-level of local public life. This involves reference to a number of notions that can be traced back to Ancient Greek thought in Athens, in which the intellectual virtue of ­phronesis – practical wisdom in a social and political context – is central. Citizens are seen as allies in the solution of social issues. LRC contributes to this through its focus on ‘turning conflict into opportunities’. Restorative justice wisdom is more widely applicable in society. However, the LRC process can sometimes be erratic and unpredict­able. The article points to the possible alternation of good and bad periods, and puts forward the expectation that the development of restorative practices in Leuven can be understood as cascades. In these cascades, the course of the diffusion of restorative practices is presented in terms of successive waves of learning experi­ences and knowledge sharing.

Restorative justice as implemented in many countries adopts a rather narrow approach, where responding to crime and other types of injustice is being restricted to the interpersonal level. ‘Society’ as important pillar in ­restorative justice does not play an ­important role in daily practice, and ­linkages to the institutional and political ­level are seldom established. Such practice risks to replicate or to strengthen structural inequalities in society. One possible strategy to deal with this challenge, is to engage in network oriented ­approaches in order to develop a better understanding of system injustices, and to contribute to more encom­passing and sustainable response mechanisms in society. Can and should the restorative justice movement build alliances with other social movements in order to realise this perspective? The article is structured along the following lines. First, various visions of ‘structural violence’ are reflected upon. Reference is made, for example, to the issue of ­(de)colonisation and concomitant forms of ‘epistemic injustice’. Considerable attention is given to the complexity and the multilayered nature of underlying causes of injus­tices in the respective social fields, and to the risk of simplification and polarisation in society but also within social movements. The discussion then fo­cuses on practices of dealing with conflict, diversity and participatory decision making within the respective social movements, and whether and how restorative justice can offer inspiration and practical support. Thirdly, broader strategies on social transformation are discussed, dealing with, for example, how the interchangeable roles of warrior and healer can be adopted, and how, at a more general level, restorative oriented partnerships can be formed.