Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Justice – when spelled with a capital ‘J’ – should be discursive [31] and based on equal respect ([40]: 206, 210) allowing a plurality of voices within the discourse. Particularly in the present research, this thread of pluralism is important. Prisoners’ voices have rarely been heard. Yet, if we wish to be true to the principle that restorative justice is discursive, it follows that the discourse is not complete without also accommodating their voices. To date, little research attention has been paid to the inner motivations of imprisoned offenders for willing to participate in restorative justice initiatives, as well as to their perceptions about their relationships with the victim and the community and the impact of religion on them. Hence, the present empirical study, conducted in several prisons across Belgium, endeavours to shed light on these aspects that have been theoretically overlooked, providing valuable information at policy-level about the design of future restorative justice programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Belgium gives prisoners access to a fund that allows them to earn money by doing community work, and this money is applied to restitution to their victim. The amount that can be granted remains limited to half of the amount owed, with a ceiling of 1,250 euro. The main objective of the redress fund is to emphasize the symbolic significance of the repayment, as well as to promote the communication between prisoner and victim. [67]: 206

  2. Currently 31 in number.

  3. In 2011, Suggnomè had received 1,860 requests for mediation, 1,685 of which were effectively accepted, while 1,202 were carried out with the participation of one victim and one offender. By the same year, 1,264 mediations were closed including at least 215 face-to-face meetings, and 413 cases that stopped prematurely (mainly because party dropped out). [92]: 12

  4. More specifically, the prison population* of Ghent prison (283) is close to that of Jamioulx (267); Brugge prison (632) was matched with Lantin (694); and Oudenaarde (132) with Namur (140). The total amount of prisoners in Saint Gilles, the largest and most populated prison in Brussels, is 528.

    * All numbers reflect prison populations at the time of visit.

  5. Prisoners had gone to the gym, others were on the phone, some had already started to work, and few of them were having doctor or family visits.

  6. ‘n’ shows the total number of valid cases.

  7. All percentages mentioned in the analysis are Valid Percentages (VP).

  8. More specifically, 290 inmates (out of 880, which is the total number of participants excluding the missing cases) were between 20–29 years old, while 308 were between 30–39 years old.

  9. Face-to-face apologies are preferred as remorse is often conveyed with body language and facial expressions. [90]: 28

  10. In cases of sex offenders, as well as drugs and alcohol related violations.

  11. Goodes, 1995 cited in [12].

  12. However, this study does not test the ‘purity’ of inmates’ motivations behind their desire to apologize.

  13. Obtaining genuineness in offenders’ behaviour and willingness to act restoratively remains an impediment in developing restorative justice programmes, both in and out of custodial settings.

  14. To distinguish them from ‘community punishment orders’ where community service is involuntary and intended to be punitive. [6]

  15. As for Brussels (n = 97; 53,5 %).

  16. Although the model is overall significant, no individual effect of the independent variable (relationship with prison staff) is observed on the dependent variable (reparative work).

  17. For inmates convicted for drug offences (p = ,046), violence (p = ,043), kidnapping (p = ,027), and especially for murder/manslaughter (p = ,003).

References

  1. Armour, M. P., Cambrai-Windsor, L., Aguilar, J., & Taub, C. (2008). A pilot study of a faith-based restorative justice intervention for Christian and non-Christian offenders. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armour, M. P., Sage, J., Rubin, A., & Windsor, L. (2005). Bridges to Life: evaluation of an in-prison restorative justice intervention. Medicine & Law, 24, 831–851.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, rights and restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 578–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bazemore, G., & Erbe, C. (2004). Reintegration and restorative justice: toward a theory and practice of informal social control and support. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2001). Restorative community justice: repairing harm and transforming communities. Cincinnati: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bazemore, G., & Stinchcombe, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of re-entry: involving community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68, 14–24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: the relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biermans, N. (2002). Restorative justice and the prison system. Paper presented in the 2nd Conference of the European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice. Oostende: 10–12 October.

  9. Biermans, N. & d’Hoop, M. N. (2001). Development of Belgian prisons in a restorative perspective. Paper presented in the 5th International Conference ‘Positioning Restorative Justice’ organized by the International Network for Research on Restorative Justice for Juveniles. Leuven: 16–19 September.

  10. Bibler-Coutin, S. (2005). Qualitative research in law and social sciences. In M. Lamont & P. White (Eds.), Interdisciplinary standards for systemic qualitative research. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bonta, J. S., Wallace-Capita, J., Rooney, K., & Canoy, M. (2002). Outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5, 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime & Justice, 25, 1–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Braithwaite, S. & Liebmann, M. (1999). Restorative justice in custodial settings: report for the restorative justice working group in Northern Ireland. Restorative Justice Ireland Network.

  14. Buonatesta, A. (2004). Victim-offender mediation in custodial settings: outcome of an experiment carried out in several Belgian prisons. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the European Forum for VOM and Restorative Justice ‘Restorative Justice in Europe: Where are we heading?’. Budapest: 14–16 October.

  15. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2007). The penal system: an introduction (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Camp, S. D., Klein-Saffran, J., Kwon, O., Daggett, D. M., & Joseph, V. (2006). An exploration into participation in a faith-based prison program. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau or Prisons.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clear, T. R., Hardyman, P. L., Stout, B., Lucken, K., & Dammer, H. R. (2000). The value of religion in prison: an inmate perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clear, T. R., Stout, B. D., Dammer, H. R., Kelly, L., Hardyman, P. L., & Shapiro, C. (1992). Does involvement in religion help prisoners adjust to prison? San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clear, T. R., & Sumter, M. T. (2002). Prisoners, prison and religion: religion and adjustment to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35, 127–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen, R. (2003). Students helping students: peer mediation. In T. S. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out: stories and strategies for making peace in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham, T. (2007). Pre-court diversion in the Northern Territory: impact on juvenile reoffending (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 339). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Daelemans, A. (2006). Guiding the change process in Belgian prisons: towards a restorative prison policy. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the European Forum for Restorative Justice ‘Restorative justice: an agenda for Europe’. Barcelona: 15–17 June.

  26. Davis, G. (1992). Making amends: mediation and reparation in criminal justice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Edgar, K., & Newell, T. (2006). Restorative justice in prisons: a guide to making it happen. Winchester: Waterside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Dunaway, R. G., & Burton, V. S. (1995). Religion and crime re-examined: the impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology, 33, 195–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Eyckmans, D., Dufraing, D. & Regelbrugge, M. (2002). The concept of restorative justice in prison seen from the community and illustrated by the practice of victim-offender mediation. Paper presented at the 2nd conference of the European Forum for Victim-Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice, Oostende: 10–12 October.

  30. Flaten, C. L. (1996). Victim-offender mediation: application with serious offenses committed by juveniles. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: international perspectives. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Frow, J. (2001). Discursive justice. South Atlantic Quarterly, 100, 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: a study in social theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001). Mass imprisonment: social causes and consequences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Guest, J. J. R. (2005). Aboriginal legal theory and restorative justice. In W. D. McCaslin (Ed.), Justice as healing: indigenous ways. St. Paul: Living Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hadley, M. L. (2001). Introduction: multifaith reflection on criminal justice. In M. L. Hadley (Ed.), The spiritual roots of restorative justice. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hagemann, O. & Robertz, F. (2000). Prevention of victimization by working with serious offenders. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Victimology. Montreal: 6–11 August.

  38. Hammarberg, T. (2008). Report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to Belgium. Strasbourg: 15–19 December.

  39. Hewitt, J. D. (2006). Having faith in faith-based prison programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hudson, B. A. (2003). Understanding justice: an introduction to ideas, perspectives and controversies in modern penal theory (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ierley, A., & Claassen-Wilson, D. (2003). Making things right: restorative justice for school communities. In T. S. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out: stories and strategies for making peace in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Johnstone, G. (2007). Restorative justice and the practice of imprisonment. Prison Service Journal, 174, 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 32–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 22–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson, B., Larson, D., & Pitts, T. (1997). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmates in Prison Fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14, 501–521.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Karmen, A. (2010). Crime victims: introduction to victimology. Belmont: Wadsworth Carnage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kerley, K. R., & Copes, H. (2009). Keepin’ my mind right: identity maintenance and religious social support in the prison context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 228–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis, A. D., & Howard, T. J. (2000). Parole officers’ perceptions of juvenile offenders within a balanced and restorative model of justice. Federal Probation, 64, 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Liebmann, M. & Braithwaite, S. (1999). Restorative justice in custodial settings. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/prisons5.htlm.

  50. Mace, A. (2000). Restorative principles in the prison setting: a vision for the future. London: International Centre for Prison Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2004). Sacred changes: spiritual conversion and transformation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mariën, K. (2010). Restorative justice in Belgian prisons. In M. Gyokos & K. Lanyi (Eds.), European best practices of restorative justice in criminal procedure. Budapest: Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: how ex-convicts reform and build their lives. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Maruna, S. (2006). Who owns resettlement? Towards restorative re-integration. British Journal of Community Justice, 4, 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why God is often found behind bars: prison conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3, 161–184.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marshall, T., & Merry, S. (1990). Crime and accountability: victim/offender mediation in practice. Home Office. London: HM Stationary.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mattison, J., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: findings from the 1998 British crime survey (Research study 200). London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McCold, P. (1996). Restorative justice and the role of community. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice: international perspectives. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. McElrea, F. W. M. (2001). A Christian approach to conflict resolution. A contribution to the seminar ‘What does the Lord require of Christians in conflict?’. Australasian Christian Legal Convention. Melbourne: 1–4 February.

  60. McNamara, M., & Dhami, M. (2003). The role of apology in restorative justice from victims’ and offenders’ perspectives. Vancouver: Institute for Dispute Resolution and Department of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mika, H. (1992). Mediation interventions and restorative justice: responding to the astructural bias. In H. Messmer & H.-U. Otto (Eds.), Restorative justice on trial: pitfalls and potentials of victim-offender mediation - international research perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Miller, S. L. (2011). After the crime: the power of restorative justice dialogues between victims and violent offenders. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Newell, T. (2001). Responding to the crisis: Belgium establishes restorative prisons. Restorative Justice in Prison Project. London: International Centre for Prison Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Newell, T. (2001). Restorative justice in prisons. Paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Restorative and Community Justice: Inspiring the Future’. Winchester: 28–31 March.

  66. Ohbuchi, K., & Sato, K. (1994). Children’s reactions to mitigating accounts: apologies, excuses and intentionality of harm. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Peters, T., Aertsen, I. Lauwaert, K. & Robert, L. (2003). From community sanctions to restorative justice, 121st International Training Course. Visiting experts’ paper 61. Available at: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No61/No61_17VE_Peters.pdf.

  68. Paterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Science and the Law, 20, 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the ‘resetting’ effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: a review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 167–203.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods of testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Restorative Justice Consortium (2006). Restorative justice works! The positive effect of restorative justice on reoffending. London: RJC. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/publications/.

  76. Restorative Justice Consortium (2011). What is restorative justice?. London: RJC. Available at: http://www.bristol-mediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/What-is-Restorative-Justice.pdf.

  77. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Reynolds, C. (2000). Workplace mediation. In M. Liebmann (Ed.), Mediation in context. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Robert, L., & Peters, T. (2002). How restorative justice is able to transcend the prison walls: a discussion of the project ‘Restorative Detention’. In E. Weitekamp & H. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice in context: international practice & directions. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ross, R. (1996). Return to the teachings: exploring aboriginal justice. Toronto: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Rugge, T. A., & Cormier, R. B. (2005). Restorative justice in cases of serious crimes: an evaluation. In E. Elliott & R. M. Gordon (Eds.), New directions in restorative justice: issues, practice, evaluation. Portland: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sarat, A. (1999). Remorse, responsibility and criminal punishment: an analysis of popular culture. In S. A. Bandes (Ed.), The passions of law. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Simon, J. (1969). Basic research methods in social science: the art of empirical investigation. New York: Random.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Simon, J. (2010). Beyond the Panopticon: mass imprisonment and the humanities. Law Culture and the Humanities, 6, 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Shapiro, C. (1992). Adult probation in America: its role in restorative justice. In H. Messmer & H. U. Otto (Eds.), Restorative justice on trial: pitfalls and potentials of victim-offender mediation: international research perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Snacken, S. (2001). National reports: Belgium. In S. van Zyl & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Imprisonment today and tomorrow: international perspectives on prisoners’ rights and prison conditions. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2000). Restorative justice: philosophy to practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Suggnomè (2011). Annual report. Available at: http://www.herstelrecht.be/jaarverslag/jaarverslagsuggnome_krant_2011.pdf.

  93. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: a sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Thomas, J., & Zaitow, B. H. (2006). Conning or conversion: the role of religion in prison coping. Prison Journal, 86, 242–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Toby, J. (1962). Criminal motivation: a sociocultural analysis. British Journal of Criminology, 3, 317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Umbreit, M. (1990). The meaning of fairness to burglary victims. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal justice, restitution, and reconciliation. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Umbreit, M. S. (1994). Victim meets offender: the impact of restorative justice and mediation. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Umbreit, M., & Armour, M. P. (2011). Restorative justice dialogue: an essential guide for research and practice. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Umbreit, M.S. & Vos, B. (2000). The Restorative justice and mediation collection: executive summary, Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin (July): US Department of Justice

  100. Van Camp, T., Van Win, T., Aertsen, I., Daeninck, P., & Malempré, H. (2004). Vade-mecum herstelrecht en gevangenis. Ghent: Academia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Van Droogenbroeck, B. (2010). Victim offender mediation in severe crimes in Belgium: what victims need and offenders can offer. In M. Gyokos & K. Lanyi (Eds.), European best practices of restorative justice in criminal procedure. Budapest: Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Van Ness, D. (2002). The shape of things to come: a framework for thinking about a restorative justice system. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H. J. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative justice: theoretical foundations. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Van Ness, D. W. (2002). The role of Church in criminal justice reform. Paper presented in the ‘Justice that Restores’ Forum. Orlando, FL: 14–16 March.

  104. van Zyl-Smit, D. (2007). Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on alternatives to imprisonment (UNODC Criminal Justice Handbook Series). New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Weiner, B., Sandra, G., Orli, P., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59, 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Workman, K. (2001). The influence of religion on inmate’s adjustment and recidivism: a summary of recent research. Report prepared for Prison Fellowship New Zealand.

  108. Workman, K. (2010). Can prisoners also be victims? Promoting injustice through legislation. Restorative Justice Online. Available at: http://www.restorativejustice.org/RJOB/can-prisoners-also-be-victims-promoting-injustice-through-legislation.

  109. Wright, M. (1982). Making good: prisons, punishment and beyond. London: Burnett Books.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: a new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale: Herald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse: Good Books Press.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Penal confinement and the restrain of crime. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Nikolaos Stamatakis & Christophe Vandeviver

  2. University of Liege, Liege, Belgium

    Nikolaos Stamatakis

Authors
  1. Nikolaos Stamatakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Vandeviver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Stamatakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stamatakis, N., Vandeviver, C. Restorative justice in Belgian prisons: the results of an empirical research. Crime Law Soc Change 59, 79–111 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9408-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9408-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation