The decision to revoke or recall a conditional sanction is barely researched in criminal justice research, despite the interests involved for the offender as well as society. This article reflects on some results from a comparative research project on breach decision-making (COST Action on Offender Supervision in Europe). Using Hawkins’ concept of serial decision-making, the interdependence of early stage and final stage decision makers is highlighted. The significant power exercised by early stage actors raises the issue of the need to ensure credibility of community sanctions and appropriate due process protections, without reducing their discretion so much that they cannot perform their role of supporting the offender to complete the supervisory order successfully.

Little is known about how ex-prisoners’ parole supervision experiences relate to desistance. The aim of this article therefore is to gain insight into the nature of release conditions and parole supervision of ex-prisoners and parolees’ perceptions of their supervision related to the desistance process. A total of 23 Dutch parolees were interviewed in depth at three waves starting in prison up to one year after their release, and the 69 interviews were combined with their parole files containing information about conditions, violations and sanctions. Parole files revealed the practice of highly engaged parole officers, who worked with parolees to strengthen factors known to foster desistance. However, the interviews showed that most parolees found their parole experience predominantly surveillance-oriented and not very helpful for desistance. Parole was experienced as most beneficial when parole officers used their discretionary power to adjust conditions creating ‘space’ for trial-and-error.

In this article the author asserts, based on his own experiences in this field, that the independence of research and researchers is not a given, but must always be conquered and defended. He relates the necessity of doing commissioned research to developments in Dutch legal academia and describes its strengths and weaknesses. He then makes the comparison with ‘pure’ academic research. He shows that most lecturers must fight and defend their independence against all sorts of developments within the modern university. There is not much room anymore to do one’s own free research. He concludes that neither academic nor commissioned research takes place in a vacuum without power relations.

Those who commission scientific research sometimes try to influence what and how the researcher executes the project, or to influence the outcomes. The scientific community utterly rejects such practices. The author discusses the diametrically different opinions on what is acceptable in the relation between those who commission scientific research and those that accept such a commission.

The new Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018) offers an important document for strengthening good research practices. It can be used in training researchers, informing the general public on standards guaranteeing trustworthiness of scientific research and handling allegations of misconduct in this research. The code departs from a set of principles worked out in standards describing the do’s and don’ts of good research practice. The Dutch code distinguishes itself for amongst others having a special section on duties of care of the organization where researchers are appointed. The organization has special responsibilities to give support to its researchers to develop good research practice and to foster a research culture in which dilemmas of integrity can be discussed in an open atmosphere. In this article special attention is paid to the principle of dependency. It is with regard to this principle that the researcher is most vulnerable, especially when it comes to commissioned research projects. How can the researcher be supported when dependency and honesty are under pressure?

Dutch police research is predominantly of a policy supporting or evaluative nature. Significant publications, such as those that started police research in the 1970s, are rare. This loss is analyzed in this article. Firstly, the author describes how the research community has changed: police officers who were disillusioned with the organization and mastered scientific competencies were succeeded by university-educated researchers who had to earn a position in the police. Secondly, the police integrated the societal urge for change, transformed it into a style of management and immunized themselves in this way against innovation. Thirdly, researchers exchanged social scientific theories for policy concepts, focusing on efficiency and excluding a societal perspective on the police. Finally, by recognizing the impact of research as a criterion of success, researchers relinquished their judgment on the quality of their research to police managers. Improvement of the situation depends first of all on the creativity and boldness of researchers.

Governments have a great need for policy-relevant research. The Dutch government obtains part of this research from the so-called state knowledge institutions: public research organizations that support ministries in the preparation and implementation of policy. To be able to provide reliable research, state knowledge institutions must be able to act independently and with integrity. But to be policy-relevant, they must maintain in close contact with ministries. Proper handling of this tension does not only requires ‘hard’ formal rules, procedures and codes of conduct, but also ‘soft’ informal institutions, such as awareness, dialogue, education, and culture. Implementing this is a shared responsibility of both the research organizations and the ministries.

This article outlines the need in the Netherlands for socially effective justice that better resolves citizens’ problems. The author argues that new forms of dispute resolution should be integrated in the justice system. The author first describes various types of innovations. Then he outlines the obstacles to innovations. A major obstacle is that many stakeholders in the existing legal system are simultaneously the gatekeepers for the admission of innovations. It is necessary to create an infrastructure that welcomes, reinforces, tests, finances and imports new treatments for legal problems.

This article is about the history of the justice of the peace, a low profile judge where people easily have access to. The history of the justice of the peace goes back to the seventeenth century. The justice of the peace was reintroduced in the Netherlands in the French period, when the country was annexed by the French Empire under the reign of Napoleon. The justice of the peace was also introduced in Belgium and is still in use. The most important task of the justice of the peace is ‘conciliation’. In the conciliation procedure the justice of the peace has a very active role. The judge tries to mediate between the parties in order to come to an agreement.

In Dutch courts several pilots are being carried out in order to enhance the quality of civil procedure. The main focus of the pilots is to speed up the procedure and make it more cost-effective, while ensuring the procedure is easily accessible and is overseen by a mediating judge in a nearby court. This focus largely corresponds with aspects of the civil procedure that the courts and the minister of Justice have identified as in need of attention. The courts and the minister have focused on different specific problems and propose different solutions, however, and neither aims to address the quality of civil procedure as a whole. It is doubtful whether the proposals for improvement, put forward by the courts and the minister, can address the concerns they have intended to resolve and whether the overall quality of the civil procedure (for all civil cases instead of the simple ones) will be improved. Solutions to the problems of the civil procedure cannot be devised without first developing a clear picture of the problems people experience with civil procedures and the courts.

Socially effective justice requires innovative legislation that allows the judge to experiment with simple procedures that bring parties together in order to prevent escalation of disputes. For that reason, the Dutch government has enabled experiments with low-threshold local civil courts. This article focuses on the experiences with such a court in Rotterdam. The court provides a simple, fast and cheap procedure with the aim of reaching a solution to the dispute in joint consultation. The article provides insight into the nature and the number of disputes that have been dealt with up to now.

This article relates the geographical allocation of Courts to access to justice. Travel distances within the Dutch system are higher than in surrounding countries, but still not extremely high. The scale of the Dutch Court organizations however, is extreme. On average, a Court location that handles small claims has jurisdiction over a territory with over half a million inhabitants. This large number of inhabitants automatically translates to large numbers of cases, and large bureaucracies, employing 500 to 1,000 people (judges, court staff, support) each. Do travel distances to the Courts actually have an impact on the use of the Court system? Two recent studies find no support for a popular belief that defendants will be less determined to defend themselves when the travel distance to the court is longer. They do show however that the number of cases brought to Court by local plaintiffs drops when ‘their’ local court closes down.

A characteristic difference between administration of justice and mediation so far was the element of voluntariness on the side of the clients. Administration of justice however is, for the citizen who is brought before the courts, not voluntary. Recently pilots have been started in which citizens can turn voluntarily to the Court at low cost, and not far from their neighborhood. Judges will not primarily aim at making a decision in accordance with the law, but at finding friendly solutions. Does this mean that judges are going to mediate? And if so, how should this be appreciated? In this contribution attention is paid to certain aspects of this question. It is argued that differences between jurisdiction and mediation still remain. More than mediators judges must act within the legal framework. The extent to which they can engage in the emotional undercurrent of conflicts is limited. Confidence in the Court is from a different origin than trust in the mediator, and that also makes a difference. And finally, a judge is competent to make a binding judgment, which influences the way he or she is looked at by the parties.

The tremendously popular television programme De Rijdende Rechter (The Itinerant Judge) has an uncomfortable relationship with official legal practice. Many people indeed think that the itinerant judge who arrives in their street to personally check neighbourly grievances has come as a representative of the Law with a capital L. It is not clear where reality TV stops and current legal practice begins. Things have become more complicated because the itinerant judge has become a symbol of the ‘close-to-the-people’ judge that is embraced by legal practice today. In this article the murky boundary between TV judges and official judiciary is investigated, taking into account the cult status of the itinerant judge, the effect of imagination on reality, similar phenomena in the United States and the current situation in the Netherlands.

This study investigates the strategies people themselves use to deal with situations in which they fear crime. The authors see people as social agents who hold agency and (also) manage their own safety, instead of viewing people as powerless victims. Previous studies have emphasized people’s agency, often through a focus on avoiding dangerous spaces. Building on insights from the fear of crime literature that approaches fear of crime as situational, the authors illustrate how spaces in which people worry about crime can also be transformed (through action) into safe(r) spaces. The article focuses on the context of urban nightlife areas. Thirty students living in Utrecht, the Netherlands were interviewed. Results show that students perform a range of strategies to cope with their fear, including situational avoidance, arranging companionship, increasing alertness, and reasoning. In the discussion the authors reflect on how the application of such strategies is related to (erosion of) ‘mobility’ and individual freedom of movement.