Report on the second and thus the joint concluding session of a Restorative Justice Circle Dialogue in the Bielefeld-Brackwede correctional facility on May 9, 2026

AI-generated image

The second district dialogue: On responsibility without easy answers.

Following the first joint group dialogue in April, the second meeting within the Restorative Justice process took place at the Bielefeld-Brackwede prison. After the preparatory individual discussions and the first joint group meeting, the focus this time was again on the personal accounts of individual participants and a deeper examination of questions of guilt, responsibility, and justice.

As with the first meeting, this circle dialogue also began with shared rituals. Participants again had the opportunity to arrive at their own pace and orient themselves internally. This form of slowing down and structuring is particularly important in the prison system, as many involved are under considerable inner tension (see blog post on psychological safety). The focus of the second circle dialogue this time was on two detailed accounts from victims and perpetrators. The narratives were guided by key questions about changes brought about by the crime, unmet needs, and what remains vivid for the participants and their families/friends. The openness with which individual participants described their experiences led to a palpable emotional intensity in the room. It became clear that questions about "just punishment" can rarely be answered definitively. There was intense discussion about how victims cope with situations in which perpetrators show no remorse or downplay the crimes, or when people are deemed not criminally responsible. It was precisely at this point that a central tension in restorative justice proceedings became apparent: legal categories and subjective experience do not necessarily coincide. For victims of crime, massive harm can persist even if no or only limited criminal guilt is established. The question of what can even be perceived as "just" in such situations remained open. Restorative justice proceedings do not aim to replace or dissolve criminal responsibility. Rather, the RJ circle dialogue opens a space in which the emotional, social, and biographical consequences of violence can also become visible. The feedback from one participant was particularly striking: this space within the circle made it possible to voice questions that otherwise often have no place, even if there might not be any definitive answers. Enduring precisely this ambivalence without producing hasty solutions is—for me—one of the most challenging aspects of this work.

The second circle dialogue once again underscored the importance of careful moderation, psychological safety, and sufficient time in such processes. Restorative justice in the penal system does not mean harmony at any price. Rather, it is about being able to endure difficult feelings, contradictions, and open questions together without shame and without oversimplifying the complexity of human experience. In closing, the participants shared their personal reflections on what they took away from the meetings and what remains important. Questions remained unanswered, but they were asked. And perhaps that was one of the most honest moments of this second circle dialogue.

I remain deeply humble and grateful for the opportunity to be involved in this work. My special thanks go to the participating prison administrations and the staff of the prison's psychological and social services, whose openness, commitment, and expertise made these roundtable dialogues possible in the first place. The implementation was based on my framework concept, "Survivor-Oriented Work in Prisons (BoAS)," supplemented by the team's own conceptual developments and specific professional considerations for structuring the RJ roundtable dialogues within their own institution.