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.

This article presents an interdisciplinary comparison of British and German legal arguments concerning the justification of the use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It is situated in the broader framework of research on strategic culture and the use of international law as a tool for justifying state behaviour. Thus, a gap in political science research is analysed: addressing legal arguments as essentially political in their usage. The present work questions whether differing strategic cultures will lead to a different use of legal arguments. International legal theory and content analysis are combined to sort arguments into the categories of instrumentalism, formalism and natural law. To do so, a data set consisting of all speeches with regard to the fight against ISIS made in both parliaments until the end of 2018 is analysed. It is shown that Germany and the UK, despite their varying strategic cultures, rely on similar legal justifications to a surprisingly large extent.

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 the Netherlands, immigration detention is classified under administrative law. More precisely: it is a form of administrative coercion. But immigration detention is also deprivation of liberty, or a habeas corpus measure. This makes it the most far-reaching form of administrative coercion you can think of. The regime and house rules of immigration detention differ just a little from those of criminal deprivation of liberty. The draft bill on the Return and Detention Act provides some improvements. For asylum seekers that cause nuisance, there is the Enforcement and Supervision Location, where the foreign national is given an area restriction and must remain within the municipal boundaries. Due to the liberty restrictions, immigration detention should always be the last resort.

Qualitative research in an immigration detention center in the Netherlands shows that detained unauthorized migrants consider the entry procedure in Immigration Centre Rotterdam procedurally just. These migrants are generally positive on the fairness of the entry procedure as their safety and welfare are guaranteed and existing procedural justice criteria are respected. However, they believe that immigration detention in itself is illegitimate and that they do not deserve to be detained. This shows that the focus on procedures and interactions is insufficient to understand the perceived legitimacy of immigration detention if shared values and consent with the legal basis of immigration detention are lacking.

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.

Because of the sharp contrast between the law-in-the-books and the law-in-action regulatory enforcement has always been a popular subject in socio-legal research. This paper looks back at forty years of Dutch research on regulatory enforcement, using several key publications in this journal from each decade. First, it is argued that these Dutch studies reveal three general themes: this research can be seen as a time machine that takes us back to some of the most important social and political events of the past decades, these studies emphasize the crucial role of individual enforcement officials, and in everyday enforcement state law only plays a limited role. Next, this review also discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of Dutch research. Most studies on regulatory enforcement are more interested in the role of the state than in the role of citizens and businesses. As a result, research focuses more on issues of effectiveness and less on questions of legitimacy. Finally, empirical research is seen as more important than theory development. Based on this overview, the author introduces a new research agenda for future research on regulatory enforcement.

Voor veel mensen met een functiebeperking geldt dat zij op wettelijk geregelde voorzieningen moeten vertrouwen voor hun basale levensbehoeften. De aannames van de wetgever betreffende welke noden van deze groep tot de verantwoordelijkheid van de maatschappij behoren, bepalen dus de mate waarin zij in deze behoeften kunnen voorzien en hoe zij – en hun omgeving – hun leven kunnen inrichten. In dit artikel wordt onderbouwd waarom de huidige aannames van de wetgever een grote groep mensen met een functiebeperking in de steek laten. In de participatiemaatschappij staan deelname aan de reguliere arbeidsmarkt en vertrouwen op het eigen netwerk namelijk centraal. Dientengevolge schiet de huidige sociale zekerheid voor mensen die niet of niet gedeeltelijk kunnen werken en geen daadkrachtig netwerk te hebben, veelal tekort. Een begin van de oplossing van dit probleem, zo wordt voorgesteld, is het opnieuw waarderen van bijdragen buiten de reguliere arbeidsmarkt en het uitbreiden en bestendigen van de voorzieningen voor mensen met een functiebeperking.

The Italian Constitution expressly contemplates the possibility of a wrongful conviction, by stating that the law shall determine the conditions and forms regulating damages in case of judicial error. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many provisions of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) deal with the topic. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the post-conviction remedies in the Italian legal system by considering the current provisions of the CCP, on the one hand, and by exploring their practical implementation, on the other.

This article reviews exoneration in Sweden, with a focus on the procedure of applying for exoneration. First, it highlights some core features of Swedish criminal procedural law, necessary to understand exoneration in the Swedish context. Secondly, it outlines the possibilities in Swedish law to apply for exoneration, both in favour of a convicted person and to the disadvantage of a previously acquitted defendant. Thirdly, it identifies some challenges with the current Swedish model of administering applications for exoneration. Fourthly, it argues that the current system should be reformed by introducing into Swedish law a review committee that administers applications for exoneration.

According to the traditional view, the ultimate aim of the extraordinary review (recurso de revisión) provided in the Spanish justice system was to deal with wrongful criminal convictions and correct those serious miscarriages of justice which became apparent only after the judgment had become final. However, the 2015 reform called this traditional view into question by formally including two additional grounds for review that are not necessarily related to the correcting miscarriages or blatant mistakes in the assessment of the facts made by the sentencing court. This paper aims to give an overview of the extraordinary review in Spain. To that end it will first address the legal framework and its practical implementation, as well as present pitfalls and best practices. Finally, future trends and challenges will be identified in order to improve the protection of defendants who have suffered a wrongful conviction.

Convict criminology draws from personal experience of imprisonment to offer critical criminological perspectives on punishment and prisons. In this article I discuss how some of these are aligned with questions of narrative and post-colonial perspectives in criminology. I use autoethnographic vignettes to communicate the experiences of imprisonment that inform the development of convict criminology, and I explore their relationship to narrative criminology’s interest in personal stories.

This article adopts German philosopher Hans Vaihinger’s Philosophy of “as if” as a vehicle to sketch the main features of the emerging research domain of narrative victimology, as well as address some of its limitations. Vaihinger emphasizes the importance of useful untruths, i.e. things we know to be untrue, but nevertheless behave as if they are not, if that strengthens their use as instruments for us to find our way more easily in the world. This applies to our daily lives, but also to our societal institutions and the models and metaphors that underlie our approaches to (social) science. The paper argues that the narrative metaphor of the historical event is often more apt to enhance our understanding of victimological phenomena than that of the mechanism, which is the default metaphor of (social) science. The paper subsequently describes four areas of inquiry of narrative victimology: victimisation’s impact on (life) stories; narratives in the aftermath of victimization; narratives of victim’s experiences with justice processes and the coincidence and juxtaposition of the victims’ narrative with narratives of other significant parties. For all its merits however, the narrative metaphor is also a “useful untruth”, equipped with its own limitations, for instance the difficulty of language in describing first hand experiences of victims and the possibility that narrative structures will be imposed upon victim experiences.

Narrative criminology focuses on stories. It initially contrasted itself with standard approaches to interviewing. The founders of narrative criminology proposed that we understand that what the persons we investigate are telling us, as acting discursively and not as factual descriptions of events or accurate representations of their perspective. This critique I compare to previous critique on interviewing to show their overlap. Next, I critique these critiques. Finally, I propose several ways through which narratives in interviews can be enriched.

This article explores the intersection of two criminological perspectives—cultural criminology and narrative criminology. Taking inspiration from Mills and Fleetwood’s article, ‘Prepping and verstehen: A narrative criminological perspective’, where the authors contend that stories complement the pursuit of criminological verstehen, this article draws attention to other ways in which cultural criminology and narrative criminology are imbricated, taking notice of commonalities in cultural criminology’s analysis of media looping and narrative criminology’s identification of cycles of storytelling practice and lived experiences. A consideration of Donald Trump’s attempts to control narrative is used to develop an argument regarding cultural criminology’s and narrative criminology’s joint questioning of linear sequencing and mutual recognition of circulating fluidity

The article presents the status quo of the law of retrial in Germany and gives an overview of the law and practice of the latter in favour of the convicted and to the disadvantage of the defendant. Particularly, the formal and material prerequisites for a successful petition to retry the criminal case are subject to a detailed presentation and evaluation. Because no official statistics are kept regarding successful retrial processes in Germany, the actual number of judicial errors is primarily the subject of more or less well-founded estimates by legal practitioners and journalists. However, there are a few newer empirical studies devoted to different facets of the subject. These studies will be discussed in this article in order to outline the state of empirical research on the legal reality of the retrial procedure. Against this background, the article will ultimately highlight currently discussed reforms and subject these to a critical evaluation as well. The aim of the recent reform efforts is to add a ground for retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant for cases in which new facts or evidence indicate that the acquitted person was guilty. After detailed discussion, the proposal in question is rejected, inter alia for constitutional reasons.