This article examines how the enforcement of dog biting incidents takes place in the Netherlands. Enforcement can be carried out using both criminal and administrative law. This practice is discussed, as well as where the bottlenecks in enforcement practice are. Finally, proposals are made to improve present practices.

Organizing dog fights is prohibited in the Netherlands. In such fights, two dogs have to fight each other, sometimes to the death. The animal suffering behind this is enormous. Little is known in the Netherlands about the phenomenon of dog fighting, both from a scientific point of view and through criminal cases. In this contribution, we outline the world behind dog fights by describing how dog fights work, who are part of the entourage and within which criminal infrastructure the dog fights take place. Finally, the problem is discussed and the current approach by the appropriate authorities is discussed and which gaps can be discovered.

De inbeslagname van een levend dier wordt beheerst door dezelfde regels die van toepassing zijn op levenloze voorwerpen. Omdat de stringente toets waaraan het beklag is onderworpen volgens de auteur in de praktijk tot onwenselijke uitkomsten leidt, betoogt hij dat met in beslag genomen dieren anders moet worden omgegaan dan met andere voorwerpen. Daartoe wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de bestuursrechtelijke bewaring, wordt de machtiging tot vervreemding besproken en passeert de proportionaliteitstoets in het kader van beklagprocedures de revue. De auteur stelt voor de beklagrechter de mogelijkheid te geven teruggave onder voorwaarden te bewerkstelligen.

Criminological literature shows that criminals involved in organized crime benefit from positive images in the media. By opening a hospital or donating funds for the development of a football field they try to present themselves in a cordial way and as good citizens to the public. Using the media to present themselves as animal lovers is a very effective manner to go for public admiration and sympathy. In this contribution is investigated how this mechanism works and why it is so effective.

In this contribution is explained what the researchers have learned from developing a course for professionals regarding recognizing signs of radicalization among youngsters. Giving this training has given us insight into the knowledge and expertise that professionals possess. The participants in our training were all enthusiastic and competent professionals. The will to support these young people and their families is great. But we have also encountered some bottlenecks: there is not sufficient time to maintain contacts with informal networks and next to that we have noticed that professionals are often insecure, meaning that they don’t know how to handle a case and/or who to contact for further advice or another form of help in dealing with these cases. As a consequence professionals might feel isolated and left behind within the institutions that they are working in. For the future we would like to see that this problem of what in The Netherlands is referred to as ‘professional loneliness’ is addressed.

Shipbreaking is the dismantling of discarded vessels to reuse parts and recycle secondary raw materials. The majority of discarded vessels ends up on Southeast Asian beaches, dismantled without regard for the environment or human health. Our case study analyses the environmental crime of shipbreaking by using the theoretical framework of state-corporate crime as a frame of analysis. We focus on Germany and Greece as countries of origin and Bangladesh as a country of destination. Our findings show that shipbreaking is the result of a complex criminogenic interplay of economic and political actors on national as well as international level.

In the media one notices items on mistreatment of animals on a regular basis. These can cause intense agitation in the society. Think of the many horses that have been abused throughout the country in 2012. This case remains unsolved to this day. The question is: who does this, who are the animal abusers, what are their characteristics and backgrounds? After a long search in several registration systems of many institutions the characteristics and backgrounds of 97 animal abusers have been found. The data of the institutions have also been used to create an image of the nature and extent of animal abuse. Subsequently there have been interviews with several experts from different organisations to record their knowledge and experience and to indicate the results. The characteristics and backgrounds of the animal abusers are diverse. Their ages range from 7 to 85 years. The offenders are an average of 34 years old at the time of committing the animal abuse. Animal abusers are not notorious criminals. Half is reported to be the first offender according to police data. The other half commits all forms of crime. This includes the share of capital offenses (34%) and violent crimes (23%). Dogs are most often abused. The motives are diverse. Disappearing anger and frustration seems to be an important reason to abuse animals. Only nine people found that there was domestic violence in addition to animal abuse. An initial classification of types of animal traffickers in, amongst others, group planners, loners and sadists, has to be empirically substantiated.

Cruelty to and neglect of animals are criminal offences. In the criminal prosecution of perpetrators of cruelty to and neglect of animals, the court may impose an injunction on the offenders to keep animals for a specific period of time. In the Netherlands, this so-called ban on keeping animals (‘houdverbod’) can be imposed by the criminal court in the form of a special condition imposed in combination with a suspended sentence. In this article we present the results of a study into the frequency with which and the manner in which the ban on keeping animals is applied nationwide in the Netherlands. The study provides insights into the prerequisites for adequate application of the ban on keeping animals. In practice, the implementation of the ban on keeping animals in its current form faces some problems. The question is how the effectiveness of the ban on keeping animals may be improved and whether there are alternative ways to apply the ban on keeping animals that may serve the purpose better. The issue of the most effective form in which to implement a ban on keeping animals – also in the longer term – is a thorny one.

Artikel 2.2 lid 8 Wet dieren bepaalt dat een dier niet de nodige zorg mag worden onthouden. Overtreding van deze norm kan zowel strafrechtelijk als bestuursrechtelijk worden gehandhaafd. De ‘nodige zorg’ is echter een breed en vaag begrip. In het artikel wordt getracht aan dat begrip nader invulling te geven. Hoe kan nu worden vastgesteld of al dan niet de nodige zorg verleend is. Daartoe worden in de eerste plaats de wetssystematiek en wetsgeschiedenis besproken. Nu artikel 2.2 lid 8 Wet dieren een welzijnsbepaling is, wordt ook het welzijnsbegrip nader ingevuld. Vervolgens wordt het ‘nodige zorg’ begrip besproken aan de hand van jurisprudentie. Geconcludeerd wordt dat de vraag of de nodige zorg is verleend, in sterke mate wordt beantwoord aan de hand van het welzijn van het dier.