Deze bijdrage bevat de (beknopte) neerslag van een studie naar de mate van effectiviteit van de bestaande nationale remedie bij een geconstateerde rechterlijke redelijketermijnoverschrijding in de civiele (letselschade)procedure. Op grond van de bevindingen van het verrichte onderzoek is met name de praktische effectiviteit van deze remedie bediscussieerd. De bijdrage bevat derhalve een gedachte-experiment van mogelijke (theoretische) denkrichtingen ter eventuele bevordering van de effectiviteit van de repressieve remedie.

In 1985 the Second International Congress on (Prison) Abolitionism took place. The organizers wanted to denounce the formalistic-legal approach to crime and revise the criminal pretensions. The aim was to develop a non-repressive process of conflict regulation. This contribution addresses the question of whether or to what extent the development of restorative justice in recent decades is an extension of the abolitionist perspective. Among other things, the developments in punishment and restorative detention and restorative justice in The Netherlands are discussed. It is concluded that restorative justice in a broad sense- and the introduction of small-scale, tailor-made detention are a realistic, at this time appropriate continuation of the efforts to find solutions for resolving conflicts outside criminal law.

Deze bijdrage betreft het wettelijk tuchtrecht, gebaseerd op de Wet op de beroepen in de individuele gezondheidszorg, Wet BIG.

In het medisch tuchtrecht, zoals neergelegd in de Wet BIG, beoordeelt het tuchtcollege of een zorgverlener volgens de (medisch) professionele standaard heeft gehandeld. Het wettelijk tuchtrecht is bedoeld om de kwaliteit van de individuele beroepsuitoefening te bevorderen en te bewaken.
Oswald Nunes en ChiChi de Haan beschrijven de tuchtrechtelijke procedure en gaan daarbij ook in op recente wijzigingen in het tuchtrecht.

A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.

In this contribution, the authors enter into a debate on the innovation The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary made quite recently, promoting social effective justice (maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak;to English readers more familiar under the label of ‘Problem solving courts’).
Klijn has quite serious doubts about this strategy. First of all: the judge is not - and never has been - a problem solver, as (a) the judge lacks the competences to do so and (b) the structure of legal procedure falls fundamentally short of this task. Secondly, in our contemporary society other professionals are in charge of intervening in social conflicts, and they are much better positioned to do so, at the appropriate moment in time. Thirdly, in making this choice the Council misunderstands its role as the Third State Power, vis-a-vis the much greater influence of changing societal conditions stimulating societal changes.

De Covid-19-crisis heeft veel inzicht gegeven in nut en noodzaak van het strafrecht. ‘Opeens’ bleek wat echt nodig was en wat niet. De auteurs houden een pleidooi voor minder vrijheidsbeneming. Werkstraffen en reclasseringstoezichten helpen vaak veel beter om mensen weer op het rechte pad te krijgen, en te houden. Ook mediation in strafrecht zou een prominentere plaats moeten krijgen. Tenslotte stellen de auteurs dat de samenwerking tussen partijen beter kan. Er is nog teveel landjepik.

In Het Papieren Paleis laten wij zien dat het strafrecht volgens de spelregels van de wetboeken vaak niet doet wat nodig is. De zoektocht naar betere manieren om de strafdoelen te bereiken is volop aan de gang. Hier een voorproefje van waar het volgens het boek heen gaat.

Waar gebruiken we een zittingszaal eigenlijk voor? Als arena voor een strijd? Als een plek waar hoor en wederhoor plaatsvindt? Wat voor ruimte is er nodig om recht te spreken? We zijn met verschillende mensen in gesprek gegaan over deze vragen, ook met wetenschappers, en zo werd de kiem gelegd voor het vak Design of Justice, dat op acht onderwijsinstellingen zal worden gedoceerd. In deze bijdrage doen wij verslag van de eerste resultaten hiervan.

In this review-essay, two books by criminologist Lois Presser are discussed: Why We Harm (2013) and Inside Story: How Narratives Drive Mass Harm (2018). In these books the author develops a general theory of harmful action, in particular collective and massive forms of harmful action that are often related to state institutions and large companies. Presser shows that all kinds of stories, scripts and ideologies may justify, support, cover up or deny harmful action. In her publications, cultural sociology, critical criminology and discourse analysis are intimately intertwined.

Since the beginning of 2020 mediation in penal cases (mediation in strafzaken) has officially become the preferred intervention for victim-offender mediation in the criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Although mediation in general has a sound theoretical framework, the methodological elaboration appears pluriform and somewhat limited. In practice mediators in penal cases operate conform their own personal and professional standards and preferences, apparently without tailor made methodology. This article describes the current methodological directions such as transformative or narrative mediation and seeks for useful references. As a part of restorative practice, mediation in penal cases seems to remain secluded from insights and methodology developed in the domain of restorative justice practices. Educational institutes providing trainings for mediators barely refer to this theoretical framework. Besides a methodological reconnaissance this article offers a fundamental comparison of mediation styles and interventions, but is above all an incentive to further methodological research and development.

In this article, an analysis is made of two response models for different forms of abuse and violence that occurred in the past on children in institutional settings. Two programmes are compared, as they operated during last 10 years in Belgium: on the one hand the Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse and violence in the Catholic Church at the national level, on the other hand the Commission for Recognition and Mediation for various types of abuse and violence in youth and educational institutions and other organisational contexts in the Flemish Community. Both models are analysed and compared at the conceptual and empirical level from a restorative justice approach, looking at the elements that may reveal a certain form of restorative justice and/or may contain lessons for the further development of restorative justice. The background and origins of both programmes are presented into detail, followed by a comparison with respect to the political options on the basis of their creation, the composition of their boards, their scope of application and their procedures. Some numbers and characteristics of cases dealt with are presented.
The analysis of both models points at the presence – in varying degrees – of important restorative justice elements as provided in the international literature. However, restorative justice standards are more prominent in the Flemish Commission for Recognition and Mediation as compared to the national Centre of Arbitration for sexual abuse in the Church. Both programmes also demonstrate that restorative action is needed at different, mutually interwoven levels: the personal (micro) level, the institutional (meso) level and the societal (macro) level. At the institutional and societal level the transformative potential of the interventions is very much needed, but also most challenging in terms of the development of effective restorative methods.