Domestic violence is a prevalent and persistent problem in society. To be able to effectively intervene in cases of domestic violence, protect victims, and reduce the costs of domestic violence, several initiatives have been implemented in recent years with the aim of improving the response to domestic violence. A multidisciplinary and systemic approach to tackling domestic violence has been introduced, which is especially important in complex cases. Police work together with different partners, among others, the organisation ‘Safe at Home’ (Veilig Thuis) and the public prosecutor. Police play a particularly important role in achieving immediate safety in cases of domestic violence, and work together with partners to accomplish more structural safety for all family members. The development towards a more holistic response to domestic violence in which the police work together with other organisations is important to be able to tackle domestic violence more effectively. Although the importance of collaboration between different organisations has been recognised, the multidisciplinary response is still in development, resulting in some problems in practice.

In the Dutch public debate on honour-based violence on a regular basis this question is raised: should a special article be introduced for criminalising honour-based violence? However, it is striking that in this debate until now not much attention has been paid towards the different roles of family members in these violent conflicts. The main focus has always been on the so-called ‘material offender’, i.e. the offender that commits or threatens to commit a violent act. But what about family members that play a role in instigating this violence, the so-called ‘intellectual offenders’? In this article it is stated that in the Dutch context we should focus less on the introduction of new articles for punishing honour-based violence in the penal code and make better use of already existing laws and legal framework for addressing these severe violent acts.

This introductory article of a special issue on naming and shaming addresses the origins of the concept and its transformation during the last decades. The main conclusion of the article is that contemporary forms of naming & shaming come closer to humiliation and public lynching, rather than redemption and self-reflection.

In 1981, PROCES published its first article on the criminal justice system in a pluriform or multicultural society. That article turned out to be the first of many articles on so-called cultural offences, like honour related violence and female genital mutilation, and the ways in which the criminal justice system could and should respond to these offences. This article reviews the various articles written on these topics for the past forty years and tries to finds an answer why it was that authors choose PROCES to publish their articles.

While the legal path to ending marital captivity has been cleared, socio-cultural obstacles continue to prevent victims from going to court. This article focuses on the religious and socio-cultural elements within the Dutch-Pakistani community that promote the continued existence of marital captivity, thereby zooming in on the importance of the nikah, the prevalence of (transnational) arranged marriages, and the concept of family honor.

Internationally the term ‘violence against women’ has been coined. In the Netherlands is referred to ‘violence in relations of dependency’. GREVIO has critiqued Dutch government for their ‘gender neutral’ approach towards intimate violence, amongst other things by using the term ‘violence in relations of dependency’ instead of ‘violence against women’. This contribution offers a critical analysis of GREVIO’s point of view regarding Dutch policies on domestic violence.

Criminology, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has built on anthropology (and other social sciences) in its development. This contribution addresses the question which insights in criminology have most been inspired by anthropology. First, it looks into the ‘criminal anthropology’ of Lombroso; then it embarks on an appreciation of the ethnographic research design within criminology (as first adopted by the Chicago School); and, finally, it assesses the link between anthropology, and cultural and global criminology. I conclude that anthropology has been valuable to our discipline on four levels: methodologically (in the importance of the ethnographic research design), theoretically (in its role in the development of symbolic interactionism and structuralism, for example), geographically (in the global scope of anthropological research), and analytically, in its experience with ‘doing ethnography’ in economically, politically and culturally embedded ways.

In previous observational studies among operational police officers, some officers stated that if a victim is not willing to (officially) report a crime to the police, they are not able to police these cases. This rather cynical and fatalistic statement raises several questions. What do police officers mean when they say this? What do they actually do in those cases and why? In this paper we try to answer these questions based on explorative qualitative interviews with several police officers in two police teams in the Netherlands. The results show that even though police officers recognize these statements among their colleagues, they do not agree with them and in practice police officers show a lot of effort and involvement in these cases. In fact, police officers have several possible strategies available to deal with these cases. Which strategy they opt for depends on various pragmatic, organisational and moral considerations.

De Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid (Inspectie JenV) houdt toezicht op de politie. In dit artikel kijken we of dat toezicht voldoet aan daaraan te stellen eisen van selectiviteit, responsiviteit en prudentie. Aan de hand van de zaak Hümeyra concluderen we dat de Inspectie JenV kennelijk niet heeft overwogen om de evaluatie over te laten aan interne of (andere) externe toezichthouders en zich ook niet heeft gebaseerd op een voorafgaande risicoanalyse (selectiviteit). Daarnaast heeft de Inspectie JenV haar onderzoek maar zeer beperkt in dialoog en interactie met de politie uitgevoerd en niet (ook) het perspectief vanuit de politie in beeld gebracht (responsiviteit). Bovendien heeft de Inspectie JenV geen rekening gehouden met de bijzondere positie van de politie (prudentie).

Issues regarding domestic violence and abuse of children are considered to be complex phenomena. Often ecological models are used in order to explain that on different levels – societal, group and individual – factors that are of influence. With some of these aspects can be dealt, while others are more complex to influence. In practice professionals with different disciplinary backgrounds need to collaborate in order to be of assistance to families in need. As a model for collaboration so-called Family Justice Centers (FJC) have been developed. This concept originated in the United States and is nowadays also adopted in Europe. In the Netherlands there is a lot of interest in these FJC’s. In this contribution the impression of two visits two FJC’s in neighboring region Flanders (Belgium) is described. What can we learn from their experiences? What are the challenges of international comparisons of forms of policies and collaborations regarding the care for families and children?

The Dutch police has noticed that in cases of honour-based violence often people are involved that might suffer from some form of trauma. Over the last years the police has dealt with cases from, for example, refugees that have fled from with war infected regions. Next to that, the road to the north of Europe was also involved with serious safety issues. Therefore the police works together with specialists in the treatment of trauma. In this article some frequently encountered misunderstandings about trauma are described, illustrated with cases of honour-based violence. The first misunderstanding is that all trauma is PTSS; the second is that PTSD explains all the mis happenings in an individual’s life; the third misunderstanding is that EMDR is the effective treatment for all sorts of trauma.

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.

There is casuistry, where on the one hand it is the turn of the professionals from the investigation, enforcement and prosecution and on the other hand the turn of the social workers from the social domain. This is the case, for example, when domestic violence occurs in circles that are also involved in organized crime. In theory it is possible that the professionals involved work together, but it is also not impossible that they will get into each other’s waters because they have a different vision of the problem to be tackled and, of course, also have to fulfill other roles and tasks based on their positions. A professional must be able to handle complex situations of this kind.