In 2011 we executed a quantitative and qualitative research on the extent of discrimination, polarisation and radicalisation in a region in the Netherlands. The results are representative for The Netherlands. The research shows that there is breeding ground for radicalization, in particular Muslim youths. The outcome also provides insights in relevant avenues for public policy. Over the past years, several inventories have been made of public policy that aims to counter radicalisation. Most of the interventions listed do not conjure with the interventions we propose on the basis of our research, such as awareness raising for practitioners, prevention of and education about discrimination, focus on neighbourhood grievances and nuisances caused by specific ethnic groups and the negative tone of the public debate regarding Islam and the multicultural society. If measures to counter radicalization are even evaluated, they tend to focus on the process and effectiveness of the intervention, but they do not answer the question if that is actually also the right intervention. We therefore propose not only to focus on doing things right, but also to ask the question if we are doing the right things. We suggest not only measuring effectiveness, but also measuring impact.

In het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden bestaan een aantal verschillende naamrechtssystemen. In dit artikel worden de verschillende rechtssystemen op kritische wijze vergeleken in het bijzonder daar waar het gaat om het verwerven en wijzigen van de geslachtsnaam.

‘Pompen of verzuipen? Bestuurder in de gevarenzone: ken uw getallen’ is een bewerking van een paper van de auteurs geschreven ten behoeve van de Insolad-cursus ‘Financiële economie voor curatoren’. Onderzocht is of bedrijfseconomische indicatoren handvatten kunnen bieden voor het te voeren beleid van noodlijdende ondernemingen. De auteurs concluderen dat bestuurders zich onvoldoende bewust zijn van het nut van het besturen van de onderneming aan de hand van actuele managementinformatie, die hen in staat kan stellen feitelijke insolventie te voorkomen en tijdig te reorganiseren. Bepleit wordt een wettelijk systeem waarbij de bestuurder door periodieke registraties wordt gedwongen elementaire managementinformatie beschikbaar te hebben, bij gebreke waarvan bij faillissement een wettelijk vermoeden van onbehoorlijke taakvervulling ontstaat.

The authors summarize the empirical findings with regard to restorative justice and crime prevention as presented in the report of the European project on the matter at hand. With regard to the offender, they studied empirical research on the reduction of recidivism. Data refer to characteristics of the offender, the view of the offender with regard to the restorative process, characteristics of the communication processes and the type of offence as influencing factors. Results in general seem to be quite positive, although there are some cases when recidivism is worse in comparison to the traditional justice process. Crawford indicates how preventative effects for the victims can be taken into account – the researchers refer to the different effects depending on the type of crime and characteristics of the victim; satisfaction, re-victimisation and post-traumatic symptoms; and the prevention of revenge. With regard to the societal preventative effects, research on restorative justice seems to be restricted to the theoretical level: empirical research in this regard is lacking.

In this article, the authors summarize some important methodological problems that may be encountered when studying the crime preventative effects of restorative justice. Studies mostly focus on tertiary preventative effects, namely the reduction of recidivism. Empirical research is in that regard mainly dealing with the effects of victim-offender mediation and conferencing practices. Some problems include the definitional issue (what can be considered as a restorative justice intervention?), the (quasi-)experimental design, the small size of samples and issues of comparability between different studies due to differences in e.g. follow-period or criteria for measuring recidivism.