In this article Emese von Bóné discusses the main findings of a Netherlands research (report) into the origin and functioning of the Belgian justice de paix and the French juge de proximité, the successor of the French justice de paix. The report also provides avenues how this type of adjudication could be implemented in the Dutch administration of justice.

Based on a retrospective analysis of six large scale and fatal fires in the Netherlands, an improvement in terms of meeting the needs of victims can be seen. A comparison of the legal settlement of these fires shows mayor differences in the fulfilling of different aspects of social justice that are identified in social psychology. Two victim needs commonly associated with retributive justice – financial compensation and a thorough, neutral investigation into the causes of the disaster – were fulfilled to a higher degree after the most recent fires than after those that occurred decades ago. The legal settlement after the New Year’s fire in Volendam (2001) appears – at least on paper – to have been more just from the victim’s point of view than the ones after the other incidents. Empirical research into the experienced social justice after the New Year’s fire can be valuable to assess the factors that can lead to a just settlement after disasters.

Gender as a construct has been introduced into criminology half a century ago and has contributed to an understanding of the relation between gender and violence. Therefore, when improving resilience of professionals encountering violent behaviour, gender might be an important construct to take into account. We know from the literature that men and women do not experience victimization and perpetration in the same way but at the same time there are some blind spots with regard to male victimization and female perpetration. Increasing resilience against violence is only possible when we do not automatically use gender stereotyping in understanding and reducing violence.

Empirical Legal Studies (ELS) is research in which legal questions are answered using empirical research methods. Traditionally, lawyers conduct normative, non-empirical research. Lately the legal discipline is increasingly interested in ELS. It is argued that we need more ELS. This raises the question to what extent Dutch researchers and practitioners conduct and apply ELS. In this article, we investigate the state of affairs of ELS in the Netherlands. We look at three different areas: legal research, legal education and legal practice. The data we use are legal PhD theses, legal course material, legislative proposals, and questionnaire data from legal practitioners. The methods are a systematic review, a quantitative content analysis, and a questionnaire research. Our study on legal research shows that researchers do apply empirical methods, but mainly the researchers with an education in social science. Our study on legal education shows that lawyers receive hardly any training on empirical research methods. Finally, our research on legal practice shows that practitioners and legislators struggle to apply empirical legal research. We plead for investments to enhance the production and usage of ELS, to prevent wrongful judicial decision-making, to generate effective legislation, and to create scientific innovation.

In this interview the Dutch prosecutor Koos Plooij discusses with criminal lawyer Christian Flokstra on the intention of the Public Prosecution Office to adapt article 46 of the Dutch Penal Law (Sr) in such a way that the burden of proof necessary for a sentence on contract killing is lowered. Plooij argues that many suspects who were clearly up to a very serious deed, have received a relatively low punishment because it was too difficult to prove that they were preparing a contract killing – and were not simply trying to intimidate their target or for instance take this person as a hostage. For the judge it is essential to establish which crime was being prepared, since the latter are completely different crimes and the punishment is much lower compared to the punishment for murder. Flokstra replies by stressing that the limitations of the current article 46 Sr exist to assure that people are not punished for things they didn’t do or were not planning to do. He argues that the prosecution should accept that sometimes there’s just not enough proof to convince the judge that the suspect was preparing a contract killing. A sentence for arms possession or participation in a criminal organization could be an alternative in such cases. Both men agree that the current maximum punishments for these crimes are too low.