In this episode of ‘In conversation with’ we are interviewing dr. Amalia Campos Delgado about her research on migration and border control in Mexico.

In deze proefschriftbespreking wordt ingezoomd op drie tijdsaspecten die invloed hebben op immateriële schade: de consequenties van het aanmerken van smartengeld als momentschade of duurschade; de invloed van de lijdensduur op de omvang immateriële schade; en de looptijd van letselschadezaken en het effect daarvan op het herstel van benadeelden.

Het recht van de Europese Unie is lange tijd weinig populair geweest onder strafrechtadvocaten. Het was abstract, moeilijk te vinden, en betrof voornamelijk economische verhoudingen. In commune strafzaken vielen er nauwelijks verweren aan te ontlenen. Het Unierecht begint echter steeds relevanter te worden voor de algemene strafrechtspraktijk. In het arrest van 17 januari 2019 inzake Dzivev e.a./Bulgarije accepteerde het Hof van Justitie de uitsluiting van onrechtmatig verkregen tapgesprekken van de bewijsvoering. Betekent dit dat bewijsuitsluiting soms ook verplicht is, zoals sommigen beweren? Dat zou grote gevolgen kunnen hebben voor de Nederlandse strafrechtpraktijk. Een bespiegeling naar aanleiding van het arrest.
HvJ 17 januari 2019, zaak C-310/16, Dzivev e.a./Bulgarije, ECLI:EU:C:2019:30

What role do Dutch criminologists play in the – especially since the onset of the so-called migration crisis – heated national and international debates on the criminalization of migration and border mobility? This will be the central question in this publication. Based on an inventory of national and international peer-reviewed publications written by Dutch criminologists, the article will reflect upon Dutch criminologists’ public role. In addition, based on the observed ‘silences’ in the scholarly debates on the criminalization of migration and border mobility, three avenues for further criminological research will be identified.

This article aims to deepen scholarly understanding of the Law and Society Movement (L&S) and thereby strengthen debates about the relation between Empirical Legal Studies (ELS) and L&S. The article departs from the observation that ELS, understood as an initiative that emerged in American law schools in the early 2000s, has been quite successful in generating more attention to the empirical study of law and legal institutions in law schools, both in- and outside the US. In the early years of its existence, L&S – another important site for the empirical study of law and legal institutions – also had its center of gravity inside the law schools. But over time, it shifted towards the social sciences. This article discusses how that happened, and more in general explains how L&S became ever more diverse in terms of substance, theory and methods.

Ever since the 2015 start of what is now often referred to as the European ‘migration crisis’, European member states have been struggling with one of the key fundaments of the European Union and in particular the Schengen Agreement: the principle of free movement. Whereas this principle entails that people should be able to move freely within the Schengen Area, as a result of the ongoing securitization and politicization of migration, Member States are exploring the different opportunities the Schengen Border Code allows them to monitor intra-Schengen cross-border mobility. In doing so, countries seem to have two options: either to temporarily reintroduce border controls or to – permanently – carry out police or immigration controls in an area around the border. In this article we explore and critically assess the choices various countries have made and what seems to be the position of the European Commission in all this.

The Mobile Security Monitor (MSM) is a form of migration policing in the border areas of the Netherlands, carried out by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMar). The MSM has a complex legal and policy framework, merging migration control aims with certain elements of crime control. This raises the question how the officers carrying out the MSM interpret the exact aim of the instrument and their own accompanying powers and what this means for the way they carry out their task. Our results show that many officers see ‘catching criminals’ an important part of their job and that in order to achieve this, they sometimes make ‘creative use’ of their wide-ranging powers. Although similar results have been found in research with the police, KMar officers differ because of their ability to combine migration law and criminal law powers. This fits in with the process of crimmigration and the broader tendency of ad-hoc instrumentalism, which refers to a way of thinking about law and legal procedures in which the formal distinction between legal domains is considered less important and criminal justice actors can freely choose the most effective instrument to deal with the situation at hand. This means that the formal ground for a decision is not always transparent, especially not for people that are subjected to the MSM. Moreover, criminal law enforcement contains many more legal and procedural safeguards than administrative controls.

This article aims to explore the driving factors behind the process of crimmigration, the merger of crime control and migration control. By analysing the legal and policy framework governing the so-called ‘Mobile Security Monitor’ – the discretionary immigration checks carried out by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee in the borderlands with Belgium and Germany, the research explores the extent to which the framework might leave room for crimmigration-based decisions on the street level. As the article shows, the dual nature of the Mobile Security Monitor as both an instrument for immigration control and crime control combined with an important name-change and the ongoing securitization of migration in Europe seem to create a favourable environment for crimmigration.

In this opinion piece the authors reflect upon the way in which applied research for law enforcement and safety management is valued within the prevailing academic culture. By drawing from the scholarship on public criminology, the authors introduce the democratic underlabourer as an important yet often undervalued and underrepresented figure capable to bridge potential gaps between academia and the practical field of law enforcement and safety management. By getting organized in the form of a guild, democratic underlabourers would increase their clout and visbility.

Hoewel bepaalde constitutionele idealen (zoals democratie) nopen tot een zekere parlementaire betrokkenheid bij wetgeving, is het vrijwel onmogelijk harde juridische maatstaven en arrangementen te verzinnen die Kamerleden dwingen intensiever gebruik te maken van hun wetgevende bevoegdheden. Via de kabinetsformatie laat met name de Tweede Kamer haar invloed op de wetgeving overigens wel degelijk gelden. Hierdoor wordt de democratische invloed op wetgeving strikt genomen niet kleiner, maar wel minder zichtbaar. Om deze zichtbaarheid te vergroten worden suggesties gedaan als een terugkeer naar de wetgevingsenquête, uitbreiding van het aantal rapporteurschappen en het verruimen van partijpolitieke ondersteuning.

Irregular immigration is considered a big problem to Western societies. In the Dutch political discourse much attention is being attributed to dealing with a specific group of irregular immigrants: those who commit crimes and cause nuisance. Despite firm migration policies focusing on catching and deporting criminal undocumented immigrant, many seem to be coming back. By means of a exploratory study this article empirically explores the underlying rationales and traits of illegal immigrants returning to the Netherlands after they have been deported.

By rephrasing and reshaping specific criminal justice and security policies, the Dutch government has been struggling for a while in trying to find its course on how to address crime problems in its multicultural society in a politically correct – non discriminatory – way. In this article we focus on government selectivity by examining the development of criminal justice policy in the Netherlands. To what extent does the government take a stand in favor of or against special – and therefore selective – attention for people with a minority background?