上篇:恢复性司法制度化与刑事司法改革近几十年来,荷兰刑事司法领域的学者和实务工作者对于国际上的恢复性司法的著述和实践已经日渐熟悉,并且也已经有了一些开展“调解(Mediation)”和“会议(Conferencing)”的尝试。本文论述的主题是:当前的这些做法在多大程度上代表着对恢复性司法的初步制度化?为此,我们有必要从理论上对制度化的过程作一解读。在文章的前两个部分,我从社会学原理的角度讨论制度化的问题,进一步丰富我关于刑罚废除主义(Penal Abolitionism)的研究和论述。恢复性司法与刑罚废除主义有很多重要的差别,它并不是一场反对制度化的运动,毋宁说是一场旨在刑事司法改革的运动。随后,我从恢复性实践对于刑事司法体制的(现实的和潜在的)意义出发,来描述和分析荷兰当前的实践。在文章中,我区分了不从刑事司法的角度进行解读的(即非正式的)恢复性司法(第三部分)和或多或少地从刑事司法的角度进行解读的恢复性司法(第四部分)。第五部分和第六部分则处理两个问题:恢复性司法在多大程度上被制 Part I: Restorative justice institutionalization and criminal justice reform In recent decades, scholars and practitioners in the field of criminal justice in the Netherlands have become increasingly familiar with the writings and practice of restorative justice in the world and have also started to carry out some work on “Mediation” and “Conferencing.” The thesis discusses the extent to which these current practices represent the initial institutionalization of restorative justice. For this reason, we need to interpret the process of institutionalization theoretically. In the first two sections of the article, I discuss institutionalization from the perspective of sociological principles and further enrich my research and discourse on Penal Abolitionism. There are many important differences between restorative justice and criminal abolitionism. It is not a movement that opposes institutionalization, but rather a movement aimed at criminal justice reform. I then proceeded to describe and analyze the current Dutch practice from the (real and potential) implications of restorative practice for the criminal justice system. In the article, I distinguish between restorative justice (Part III) that is not interpreted from the perspective of criminal justice (Part III) and restorative justice that interprets more or less from the perspective of criminal justice section). The fifth and sixth sections deal with two issues: to what extent is restorative justice