Report on the first meeting of a Restorative Justice Circle Dialogue in the Bielefeld-Brackwede correctional facility on April 19, 2026

Foto von dem ersten Täter-Opfer-Kreis 2022 in Bielefeld-Brackwede

After five intensive preparatory meetings, the day finally arrived on April 18, 2026: The first joint meeting of a Restorative Justice Circle Dialogue based on my concept "Victim-Oriented Work in Prisons (BoAS)" took place at the Bielefeld-Brackwede prison, accompanied by the prison's social worker and myself. This is the second time I have had the privilege of supporting a team in this work. The fact that these Victim-Offender Circles (VOCs) can take place there is primarily thanks to the dedicated team, as well as the former prison directors, Mr. Nelle-Cornelsen and Mr. Wulfert, and the current prison director, Mr. Burlage. Six participants—incarcerated individuals and victims of crimes (not necessarily the same crime, but similar offenses)—engaged in direct, safe dialogue for the first time.

Following the established introductory ritual, the group of six participants was offered a moderated round of introductions. The aim was to initially establish a personal connection without delving too deeply into the specific contexts of the crimes. One person affected by the crime expressed a wish to begin the dialogue phase directly with personal accounts. This suggestion was taken up and unanimously supported by the other participants. After an initial moment of noticeable tension, particularly during the first meeting between those affected and those incarcerated, the group atmosphere quickly developed into an open and supportive conversation.

The discussion began with the account of an incarcerated participant. He recounted his life story and the events surrounding his crime, expressing a profound sense of shame. Regarding his life sentence, he described an ambivalent experience: on the one hand, he felt the punishment was just, but on the other, it seemed disproportionate in comparison to other cases and sentencing. He also addressed aspects of his trial, in which he felt he had not been adequately considered as a person. Nevertheless, he emphasized his complete acceptance of responsibility and his conscious decision to waive his right to appeal. In the ensuing dialogue, he received feedback from the group, which included both recognition for his acceptance of responsibility and critical, in-depth questions. One participant specifically inquired about his subjective experience during and after the crime, as well as his thoughts on the victim's family. The discussion then evolved into an intensive exploration of the themes of forgiveness and retribution. Several participants discussed different perspectives, including the question of whether violence can be answered with counter-violence or whether this leads to some form of redress. One affected person vividly described their own development: While initially there had been strong impulses for revenge, over time they had come to realize that such an action would have led to continued personal distress, both practical and psychological.

Another thematic focus emerged in the context of perceived structural imbalances within the justice system. Those affected reported significant financial burdens as a result of the crime (including funeral expenses and legal fees), while simultaneously expressing the impression that those responsible for the crimes received extensive state support. In contrast, an incarcerated participant described his own experience of financial restrictions during his incarceration and a lack of transparency regarding his wages. This sequence highlighted differing, sometimes contradictory, perceptions of justice and institutional frameworks.

Later, another incarcerated participant recounted his crimes. He expressed clear remorse and reflected on biographical factors, particularly an early onset of delinquency and the influence of alcohol. He described his actions and explicitly raised the question of possible forgiveness in a comparable context. The dialogical dynamic during this phase was characterized by mutual recognition, emotional openness, and an increasing willingness to adopt different perspectives. Recurring themes included responsibility, justice, acknowledgment of suffering, and individual coping strategies.

A (well-prepared!) restorative justice circle dialogue provides a sound framework for nuanced, even emotionally demanding, discussions. The combination of structured elements and open-ended facilitation enabled participants to contribute personal experiences and engage in genuine dialogue.

What this circle dialogue has shown me once again is that when a clear and safe framework is established, even highly sensitive topics can be transformed into genuine dialogue. Perspective-taking, reflection on responsibility, and mutual recognition become possible not by resolving contradictions, but by enduring and working through them. I myself feel humbled and grateful that day to have been able to accompany this process.