Criminal justice is oriented at retrospective responsibility: examining whether the defendant is guilty and imposing a punishment that fits the crime. In this article it is argued that prospective responsibility needs more attention: taking responsibility. We have to remind the offender of his obligations: pay his debt, repair the harm done, work to change his behaviour and enhancing his situation. We should also take account of the interests and needs of the persons concerned. It is also argued that stimulating active responsibility should take place within the logics of ‘doing justice’. Criminal justice cannot respond to the imperatives of care, well-being and problem-solving.

This article examines the desirability of implementing a registration system as a means of control on the discretionary space in police powers of stop and search. Firstly, the legal background concerning these powers is sketched, and the discretionary space therein is highlighted. This is then placed within the current social context in the Netherlands. Finally, the desirability of implementing a registration system in the Netherlands will be discussed by analyzing a similar system that has been implemented in the UK. We conclude that implementing a registration system is an essential step in coming closer to a solution for ethnic profiling.

Over the past few years attention is placed on the influence of immigrants and asylum seekers on the security of the state. Due to this development the Dutch Criminal Law and Immigration Law are ‘merging’. Immigration and safety policies are applied to exclude certain groups of people from society, generally immigrants and (ex)offenders. This article will reflect upon this process by showing the exclusion of people from Dutch society on the basis of article 1F of the Refugee Convention. This legal ground is used as a condition for exclusion and therefore it can be considered as pre-sentencing.

The author analyses and compares several distinct models of doing justice to find out which is serving ‘sustainable justice’ the best. Sustainable justice could be defined as justice that produces conflict resolutions that last for a long time and in this way contribute to a more sustainable society. Modern developmental methods for organisations make use of assessments to measure, compare and improve the effectiveness of organizational cultures. These methods are used in this contribution to analyse the organizational cultures of mediation, the traditional accusatorial (penal) procedure, problem-solving courts (with a focus on drug courts) and restorative justice conferencing. The comparison results in conclusions indicating that mediation and problem solving courts have a sound and effective organizational culture, due to healthy conflict management styles, characterized by managing both opposition and competition constructively and by a stimulating person-oriented focus. Restorative justice conferences bring together many stakeholders in a conflict and its resolution and facilitates in this way the awareness of the connections between many problems behind the actual conflict at hand: for this reason the resolutions may have a deeper societal impact and a greater sustainability.

Considerable political pressure is currently being brought to impose severe punishments, and it is frequently suggested that these punishments would enhance the wellbeing of victims and achieve ‘closure’. Populist images, such as ‘victims have a right to revenge’ have gained great influence. To what extent would therapeutic professionals have to support victim needs that are shaped within such punitive contexts? In this paper it is first argued that revenge embraces ambivalent meanings. Although avengers are lauded in the popular imagination, feelings of revenge are still viewed as ethically unacceptable. In recent decades, however, a penal populism has been gaining ground as a result of which revenge was stripped of its pejorative associations. In a punitive climate it is believed that victims would demand harsher penalties and that such penalties would promote closure and peace. Research findings show however that revenge may bring temporary relief, but anger rumination precludes healing. Subsequently the question is discussed whether two different forms of victim participation, victim impact statements and restorative justice conferences, might temper revenge feelings. Because VIS-participants (dealing with high levels of anger and fear) believe that their statements will culminate in longer sentences, they are generally frustrated that the imposed sentence is not tough enough. After the procedure they keep on viewing the offender as a malign person. Restorative procedures generally show an opposite picture. Finally this paper is criticizing the tendency of victim-oriented therapeutization within criminal justice and restorative justice. It is argued that the voice of the victim and the process of emotional healing should be separated strictly.

The Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure and the related guidelines of the College of Procurators-General are for all sorts of historical and ideological reasons heavily restrictive when it comes to the use of cooperative witnesses in criminal proceedings. What strikes most is that even in very serious cases it is not possible to grant a witness complete or partial immunity in exchange for his important cooperation. This contribution describes the problems arising sometimes in criminal cases wherein prosecutors, despite the existing narrow framework, make a deal with such a witness. The article outlines not only the historical and international background of the use of cooperative witnesses, but also its contemporary legal framework in the United States, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany. The outcome of this comparative exercise is that at least the current legal provisions should be evaluated and that this evaluation should take into account the system and experiences in other countries as well as the problems of serious crime in the Netherlands and the leniency policies that govern the efforts to contain serious white collar crime like e.g. cartels.

Since November 2009, the regional police of Groningen facilitated their community officers with Twitter. According to the principles of community policing, they are enabled to shorten the distance between the police and citizens by giving them a direct connection. Such a connection should stimulate interaction, while at the same time it should make people feel more safe. In addition, Twitter also creates possibilities for the police to be transparent. Sharing of information should alter citizens’ perception towards the police.
A comparison has been made, by using an online questionnaire, between followers and two kinds of non-followers. The effects of following twittering community officers have been demonstrated by using statistical analyses, taking into account relevant control variables. On the basis of these analyses it has been demonstrated that following a twittering community officer did not positively or negatively alter the perception of safety of their followers. However, an enhanced information position has made followers much more aware of local disorder and crime. Thanks to shared information about police actions to sustain and improve local safety and livability, followers’ perception of safety has not been altered negatively.
Followers’ perception towards the police organization has been positively altered, thanks to the twittering community officers. Especially the sharing of information and involving citizens into local policing helps the police to alter the perception of citizens towards their organization. In addition, it has been shown that followers’ willingness to report has been improved. Thanks to the ease of use of Twitter and the shortened distance between the police and citizens, followers do frequently contact the police or a community officer to share some information, or to report some crime or disorder. However, it has been shown that Twitter should just be presented as complementary to existing ways to contact the police.

This study aims to examine the practice of the decision making on conduct certificate requests of juvenile ex-offenders, as there has not been done any empirical research on this topic so far. 57 cases are studied in order to answer the question whether the decision making meets the legal and penological justifications for collateral sentencing. Conclusion is the decisions are not proportional as to the seriousness of the risks which are aimed to be prevented and the relation between the past convictions and the desired job. Moreover, the requests are being individually assessed, yet more weight should be attached to the age, interests and positive developments of juvenile ex-offenders. Only then, the decisions can be regarded legitimate and proportional and do hinder juvenile ex-offenders’ successful reintegration into society.

In this contribution the question is addressed how measures that aim to hold ex-convicts from occupying certain jobs and positions can be justified and what their limitations are. In the literature on collateral sentencing in particular four conditions are stressed. First, the vulnerable character of the occupation or activity involved. Second, there should be a strong relation between the conviction and the risk that has to be avoided. Third, collateral consequences should be individualized and only be imposed against those posing specific and demonstrable risks. Finally, a broad proportionality test should be applied on them, harsh civil disqualification should not be applied for relatively minor offences and burdensome restrictions may not be imposed in order to prevent relatively trivial risks. This theoretical model is applied on the regulation and practice of the Dutch conduct certificate.

In the Netherlands, a person sentenced to life imprisonment (lifer) cannot be pardoned or paroled. This has led to debate. I have investigated if this impossibility also exists in other countries (Canada, England, Germany, Belgium). This article shows that in all the other countries studied, lifers can be pardoned after a certain period of time. A law comparative interpretation of article 3 ECHR would therefore lead to the conclusion that the current Dutch policy is contradictory to this article. The results in this article could contribute to the debate that has arisen in the Netherlands.

What do we know about the criminological aspects of international crimes? What do they entail and what are facilitating factors which can help us understand their causes and how should we respond to these crimes? Are international crimes merely a more extreme form of ordinary crimes or are they a different kind of criminality? In the past few years a growing number of scholars both at a national and at an international level have devoted their scholarly attention to this important and urgent research theme. In this special issue we aim to present a number of articles in which different perspectives on this topic are presented. By doing so we hope to enhance our knowledge of this phenomenon and to provide an impulse to further criminological research within this area in both the Netherlands and Belgium. This introductory article gives an overview of the state of the art of international crime criminology in the Netherlands and Belgium, and the rest of the world.

By expanding preventive powers, the Dutch criminal justice system is increasingly aimed at detecting risky people and groups as soon as possible. This so-called actuarial justice is accompanied by a great deal of discretionary power in the hands of those who have to enforce the law, bearing the risk that such powers may be carried out (in part) on the basis of generalizations relating to race, ethnicity, religion or nationality instead of on the basis of individual behavior and/or objective evidence. By presenting the results of an exploratory study into the perceptions of minorities with regard to racial profiling, the main conclusion of this article is that there is a clear necessity for further empirical research into this area.

Early this year, a bill was introduced proposing mandatory minimum sentences in the Netherlands. Despite harsh criticism from within the legal complex, the bill has not been withdrawn, instead its scope has been broadened. This article states that the reasons given for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences have no empirical foundation and that the objectives of the bill will not be reached: mandatory minimum sentences will not contribute to the prevention of crime. The reason for the introduction of the bill is nothing less than a textbook example of penal populism.

In the past decades the social intuitionist approach to moral psychology has eclipsed rationalist models. The social intutionist approach considers emotions to be a driving force in moral judgement, while reasoning most often functions as a post hoc rationalisation of the initial emotion. This article argues that the social intutionist approach is also applicable to the choice and preferences victims make and have while navigating the criminal justice system. This is illustrated through two recent evaluations of victims experiences in the Netherlands: an evaluation of the Dutch victim-offender encounters and the oral and written Victim Impact Statements (VIS). It is shown that participation in the former programme is a function of low emotional impact, while participants in the VIS-schemes present with high levels of anxiety and anger, and exhibit signs of possible posttraumatic disorder. The implications of these findings are discussed and framed in terms of the social intuitionist model of moral psychology.

This article sketches some important tendencies in the attention for victims of crime, including in supranational regulation, with regard to the position of the offender and possibilities for restorative justice. The evaluation of victim policy in Belgium offers a view on this topic: victims have certain expectations towards the justice system and pose questions with regard to the offender. A third issue regards the place of restoration within the whole range of consequences of crime for victims: what is the meaning of ‘harm’ and what is the content of ‘restoration’ for victims? A last topic considers the openness of victim assistance programmes with regard to the offender dimension and possibilities of restorative justice. This article thus evaluates the possible link between victim assistance and restorative justice.

Seemingly a difficult concept, participation in restorative justice can be understood better once the notion is broadened and operationalized. Therefore a proposal will be made here to first broaden the meaning of participation beyond participation of stakeholders and ‘community’ in the process as it is generally understood in restorative justice literature, and second break down the concept of participation into five different levels: (1) involvement of the stakeholders and the ‘community’ in the restorative process; (2) participation of citizens as volunteer mediators/facilitators in the process; (3) self-referrals from citizens; (4) voluntary participation of experts in restorative justice organisations; (5) promotion from ex-victims of crime and ex-offenders. Based on this approach, in the end, the author opens up the discussion on the meaning of active citizenship for restorative justice in continental Europe. Before discussing how the broadening of the concept of participation is concretely envisioned, the author argues on the importance of prioritizing the notion of citizenship instead of ‘community’ in the continental European restorative justice discourse.

This contribution aims to understand the right things when doing justice. Restorative justice is an approach to crime that, properly pursued, focuses not merely on the lawbreaking behaviour of the offender but also on the effect of that behaviour on victims and communities. Restorative justice seeks accountability on the part of offenders in such a way that the harm done can be addressed and repaired to the extent possible. Restorative justice allows the parties to a crime to participate directly and voluntarily in considering the harm and fashioning a resolution that addresses that harm. It is also important that the right thing about restorative justice and about democracy be understood. Crucial is respectful dialogue during which people who disagree listen to one another, speak from the heart and mind, identify common values, recognize the importance of the others, and work toward a common solution.