13806424_omslag125px
Rss

Recht der Werkelijkheid


Meer op het gebied van Algemeen

Over dit tijdschrift  
Aflevering 1, 2016 Alle samenvattingen uitklappen

Nina Holvast
Nina Holvast is promovenda bij de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Ze doet onderzoek naar de rol en invloed van juridische ondersteuning op het rechterlijk besluitvormingsproces. Daarnaast geeft ze onderwijs, onder andere het vak Recht en Menselijk Gedrag.
Artikel

Becker’s theory on crime and punishment, a useful guide for law enforcement policy in The Netherlands?

Trefwoorden Economics of crime, law enforcement policy, Gary Becker
Auteurs Ben van Velthoven en Peter van Wijck
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Becker’s theory on crime and punishment provides guidelines for designing an optimal law enforcement policy. In designing such a policy the costs of law enforcement should be traded-off against the benefits that originate in deterring criminal acts. We investigate whether law enforcement policy in the Netherlands is consistent with this guidelines. Since policy makers are not very precise on the goals of law enforcement policy and hardly anything is known about the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments, it turns out to be impossible to say whether law enforcement policy actually contributes to social welfare. This is not necessarily problematic if, in line with the efficient law hypothesis, law enforcement automatically converges to an efficient outcome. Furthermore, Becker’s theory appears to miss a crucial element by not taking account of existing preferences for retribution. If utility is derived from seeing that justice is done, this should be included in the welfare criterion. Assuming policy makers prefer welfare enhancing law enforcement, they would be well-advised to start systematically collecting information on the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments of law enforcement policy.


Ben van Velthoven
Ben van Velthoven is universitair hoofddocent Rechtseconomie aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Leiden.

Peter van Wijck
Peter van Wijck is universitair hoofddocent Rechtseconomie aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Leiden.
Artikel

Understanding judges’ choices of sentence types as interpretative work: An explorative study in a Dutch police court

Trefwoorden Judicial decision-making, sentencing type, (ir)redeemability, whole case approach
Auteurs Peter Mascini, Irene van Oorschot PhD, Assistant professor Don Weenink e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article critically evaluates the prevailing factor-oriented (e.g. a priori defined legal and extralegal characteristics of defendants) approach in analyses of judicial decision-making. Rather than assuming such factors, we aim to demonstrate how Dutch judges engage in interpretative work to arrive at various sentence types. In their interpretative work, judges attempt to weigh and compare various legal and extralegal features of defendants. Importantly, they do so in the context of the case as a whole, which means that these features do not have independent or fixed meanings. Judges select and weigh information to create an image of defendants’ redeemability. However, extralegal concerns other than redeemability also inform judges’ decisions. We argue that studying the naturally occurring interpretative work of judges results in a better understanding of judicial decision-making than outcome-oriented studies, which view criminal cases as collections of independent legal and extralegal factors.


Peter Mascini
Peter Mascini holds a chair in Empirical Legal Studies at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where he is also associate professor of sociology at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. His research focuses on the legitimization, implementation, and enforcement of laws and policies.

Irene van Oorschot PhD
Irene van Oorschot is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of the Social Sciences at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and will soon start as a postdoctoral researcher at the Anthropology Department of the University of Amsterdam. Drawing on actor network theory and feminist studies of knowledge, her research focuses on legal and scientific modes of truth-production.

Assistant professor Don Weenink
Don Weenink is assistant professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He has published work on, among other subjects, ethnic inequalities in judicial sentencing.

Gratiëlla Schippers
Gratiëlla Schippers has studied Sociology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. For her master thesis she has done research about the understanding of judges’ choices of sentence types.

    Self-regulation not always implies autonomy. Spontaneous self-regulation should be distinguished from commissioned self-regulation. The latter form of self-regulation is nowadays widespread and the result of outsourcing governmental activities. Outsourcing can be conceptualized in terms of Principal-Agent relations, in which the P commissions an A to realize P’s aims. In commissioned self-regulation the A is often constituted by the P and required to make rules in order to advance P’s aims. However, rule-making is not an activity which remains unaltered if it changes hands. In a context of spontaneous self-regulation rules fulfill a variety of functions. They guide actions and decision-making, they serve as both justification and as criticism of actions and decisions, and will thereby limit arbitrariness. In commissioned self-regulation, these manifold functions tend to be reduced to one dominant function: justifying performances towards P. In the latter capacity rules tend to be formalized and presented in a format that enables the P to arrive efficiently at a decision. Moreover, for the P the content of the rules matters less than their existence. The degree in which the external function of rules prevails determines not only how rules are presented but also how they are drafted and selected. The more A anticipates the perspective of P, the more autonomy risks to be undermined.


Pauline Westerman
Pauline Westerman is hoogleraar Rechtfilosofie aan de Faculteit Rechten van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en is tevens verbonden als staflid aan de Academie voor Wetgeving en Overheidsjuristen. Zij publiceerde in 2012 het boek Recht als Raadsel bij uitgeverij Paris, (nu tevens in het Zweeds vertaald) en bereidt momenteel een monografie voor die zal uitkomen bij Elgar Publishers onder de titel Outsourcing the law: a philosophy of regulation.

Nick Huls
Nick Huls is emeritus hoogleraar rechtssociologie aan de Erasmus School of Law en de Universiteit Leiden. Hij is tevens a visiting professor aan de Law Faculty of the University of Pretoria.
Praktijk

Zacht waar het kan, hard waar het moet? Casestudies naar handhaving in de sociale zekerheid

Trefwoorden responsive regulation, social security, enforcement, field research
Auteurs Paulien de Winter
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Dutch social security is mainly conducted by municipalities (social services), the Dutch Employment Insurance Agencies (UWV) and the Social Insurance Bank (SVB). In order to explore to what extent agents adjust their enforcement style, as stated in the responsive regulation approach (Ayres & Braithwaite), five case studies will be conducted; three studies at social services and two studies at Employment Insurance Agencies.
    During this field research I will attend every agency for two months. I will be observing the behavior of agents during their contact moments with beneficiaries. At the same time I will ask for comments on events, opinions and feelings regarding various aspects of the work. I will also conduct in-depth interviews with several agents and beneficiaries. Based on a sample I will make a selection of enforcement cases and I will analyze agreements on enforcement, regulation, directives, guidelines and recommendations.


Paulien de Winter
Paulien de Winter is afgestudeerd als socioloog en sinds februari 2014 werkzaam als promovenda bij de Vakgroep Rechtstheorie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Zij doet onderzoek naar handhaving in de sociale zekerheid en voert hiervoor participerende observaties uit bij sociale diensten en UWV.
Boekbespreking

Netwerken om onzekerheid te bolwerken

Auteurs Willem-Jan Kortleven
Auteursinformatie

Willem-Jan Kortleven
Willem-Jan Kortleven is als universitair docent verbonden aan de afdeling Bestuurswetenschap & Politicologie van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Hij publiceert over veiligheidsbeleid. In 2013 promoveerde hij aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam in de rechtssociologie op het proefschrift Voorzorg in Nederland.