De auteurs staan stil bij het door de coronacrisis noodgedwongen thuiswerken. Het wetsvoorstel Werken waar je wilt en ontslagrechtelijke aspecten worden behandeld.

Prisoners often encounter multiple barriers when returning to society, resulting in higher risks of recidivism. To overcome these barriers, prison-based and community-based professionals assist with preparation for release. Prison-based professionals, such as the case manager and mentor, screen and monitor the problems regarding work and income, housing, healthcare, financial debts and valid identification. Community-based professionals, such as municipal officials, parole officers, healthcare professionals and volunteers, can provide additional and specialized help. First, this research discusses the current policy of the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and the role of different types of professionals. Second, it presents a nationwide picture of the extent to which prisoners report contact with prison-based and community-based professionals, and to what degree prisoners appreciate this contact. The results are specified for various types of regimes and time served and are based on 4308 prisoner surveys of the Dutch Prison Visitation Study (DPVS), part of the Life in Custody Study (LIC-study). It turns out that most prisoners seem to be in close contact with prison-based professionals and that prisoners positively value this contact. However, contact with community-based professionals is limited and prisoners are somewhat dissatisfied about their contact with parole officers and municipal officials. Furthermore, the amount of contact differs across various types of regimes and time served. In particular, individuals who recently entered prison report less contact. To conclude, policy implications will be discussed.

In deze bijdrage bespreken auteurs de beschikking van de OK van 21 juli 2020, waarin zij onmiddellijke voorzieningen en een enquête heeft gelast bij de Stichting Katholieke Universiteit. Ze bespreken bepaalde juridische aspecten van onderhavige beschikking en de wijze waarop de OK die juridische begrippen in dit concrete geval heeft ingevuld.

In dit artikel wordt aan de hand van recente jurisprudentie het toepassingsbereik van de kruimelgevallenregeling besproken.

‘The victim’ is an important figure in restorative justice, but who is this victim? In this article, I will review articles published in this journal between 2005 and 2019 in order to establish the characteristics of victims recognized in the field of restorative justice. It first needs to be noted that there is not one homogeneous victim group. The diversity in victims and their needs calls for research investigating when, for whom, and under which circumstances restorative justice practices lead to victim satisfaction. Many articles reviewed address this question. When I nevertheless try to extract an ideal type of victim of restorative justice, it seems that the victim is agentic and resilient, expresses a wide range of emotions, prioritizes reparation over punitive measures and is overall very satisfied with the restorative justice practice.

Using frame analyses, the authors explore how people confirm, question or deny victimization, or refrain from interpretation. A frame consists of a problem definition (acts), the diagnosis of causes (identifying actors), and moral judgments. Results confirm that the interaction between factors defines the interpretation of victimization. Similar acts (for instance the consumption of alcohol) are ascribed different meanings depending on the type of frame. The positioning of actors in a frame determines who or what is perceived responsible for the (moral) judgment.

Whereas the starting point of victimisation is clearly marked by a co-occurence of harm and wrong, the end of victimhood is not as straightforward. What is more, because victimisation is a social construct, the label of ‘victim’ is established in social interaction, meaning that third party observers have a role in the understanding of the (limits of) victimisation. In this article, I suggest that third party observers may understand attempts at restorative justice, more specifically, an apology, as an indicator of recovery of the victim. If this is true, they may expect the victim to decrease emotional display that signals victimisation after receiving an apology. If the victim continues to display similar signals of victimisation, this may result in negative victim-oriented responses. In an exploratory repeated measures vignette study, I show that third party observers evaluate the victim less positively after the victim received an apology than before they received this apology. The results imply that in understanding the (limits of) victimhood, we should consider the dynamics between victim and offender but also a broader circle of third-party observers. This is also important for restorative justice.

The Life In Custody-study is a large scale, prospective panel study, aimed to examine the quality of prison life in The Netherlands. This paper describes the LIC-study by giving a detailed overview of the data collection procedure, and strategies to optimize response, and presents the first nationwide results on prison climate in The Netherlands. Results show that the data collection procedures utilized were successful in obtaining a high response rate (which was an exceptional 81%) and reaching a representative group of prisoners. Furthermore, results show that the perceptions of prison climate vary across prison regimes, and to a lesser extent across age groups and time spent in detention.

#MeToo has played a significant role in the struggle to confront taboos around sexual violence, including the acknowledgment of male rape victims. In this article, the authors have examined reactions at three different moments in time (T1, T2, T3) to Dutch journalist Jelle Brandt Corstius, who shared his #MeToo experience via Twitter. The article shows that the Belief in a Just World, victim stereotypes and rape myths seem particularly useful concepts to examine different positive (supporting, compensating) and negative (blaming, distancing) observer reactions. Reactions are most negative at T2, when JBC’s case least adheres to stereotypes and rape scripts.

Studies indicated that detainees are not always allocated to treatment programs based on official guidelines. Street-level bureaucracy theory suggests that this is because government employees do not always perform policies as prescribed. This study aimed to assess whether this also applies to the allocation of offenders to treatment in Dutch penitentiary institutions. This was studied among a group of 541 male prisoners who participated in the Recidivism Reduction program. The results showed that official policy guidelines were, in most cases, not leading when referring detainees to behavioral interventions. Instead, treatment referrals were influenced by a broad range of risk factors, as well as the length of an offender’s sentence.

In deze bijdrage bespreekt de auteur de uitspraak van het Hof Amsterdam van 13 januari 2015. Meer in het bijzonder zal zij stilstaan bij de contractuele toelaatbaarheid en afdwingbaarheid van een aandeelhoudersovereenkomst in strijd met dwingend recht.

The current study examined the extent to which risk factors and treatment readiness were related to prison based treatment engagement (i.e. participation and completion), using a large sample of detainees who were a candidate for the Prevention of Recidivism program. Analyses showed that offenders who were treatment ready were over two times more likely to complete treatment programs, compared to offenders who were not. Risk factors did, for the most part, not correlate with treatment participation and completion. Outcomes underlined the importance of motivational aspects and showed the significance of enhancing treatment readiness amongst correctional resocialisation participants.