Samenvatting

In this article I respond to a number of contributions from issue 1 of this volume of the Journal of Restorative Justice. In it I show that in my view restoration is not the same as punishment, as long as in the latter concept the retribution of evil with evil has a place, concretely: the aim of harming the offender. The equating of punishment with retribution in the sense of the intentional addition of suffering – whether or not in disguised form – is, in my view, anything but a caricature or artificial given current theory and practice. That is why I disapprove of punishment for the time being and see restoration as something fundamentally different and better. Furthermore, I show that restoration is partly in line with both consequentialist and deontological thinking and that restoration is primarily about justice, not just decency. Also, in my view, a criminal law based on restorative justice can also be called humane, because it puts the human being first and serves to restore and preserve that human being through the retribution of evil with good. In the retribution of evil with good comes an awareness and attitude that are invariably aimed at repairing and preventing damage. Beyond all the boxes lies the core of what I think it should be about: ‘Thou shalt not harm another’, because: ‘Treat another as you would like to be treated yourself’. No matter what a reaction to injustice that underlies this core is called… The rose will be recognized by its scent.