Zoekresultaat: 7 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid x Rubriek Artikel x
Artikel

De preventieve inzet van het tijdelijk huisverbod bij dreigend huiselijk geweld

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden domestic violence, temporary restraining order, domestic violence risk, prevention, assessment
Auteurs Leontien M. van der Knaap
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On January 1, 2009 the Temporary Restraining Order Act entered into force allowing mayors to impose a ten-day restraining order on potential perpetrators of domestic violence. This restraining order, which may be extended to 28 days, prohibits the perpetrator from entering his or her house as well as from contacting the persons staying behind in the home (partner, children, or other members of the household). In order to impose a temporary restraining order, risk factors relating to the perpetrator, the incident, and the family have to be assessed using a domestic violence risk assessment tool (RiHG).The immediate cause to introduce the Act was to enable mayors to take action in situations that, before, would not have given police just cause to intervene because no offences had (yet) been committed. However, evaluations show that temporary restraining orders are mainly imposed in conjunction with criminal proceedings. Yet, researchers suggest that the temporary restraining order may be imposed as a truly preventive measure in a large amount of situations that until now have not been considered (for instance, situations that have not escalated into physical violence). This article examines whether such preventive restraining orders exist within a sample of imposed orders and if so, what characteristics they share.Results show that truly preventive restraining orders are extremely rare. Closer inspection of cases that according to the available risk assessment were not notably violent showed that most of these cases could not be regarded as cases of truly preventive restraining orders. The discussion of the article focuses on the implications of these results for the suggestion that a large number of situations could be suitable for imposing a preventive restraining order.


Leontien M. van der Knaap
Dr. L.M. (Leontien) M. van der Knaap is universitair hoofddocent bij het International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT) van Tilburg University. E-mail: l.mvdrknaap@uvt.nl
Artikel

Veiligheid

Een almaar uitdijend concept

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden problem definition, safety, security, queen’s speeches
Auteurs Sandra Resodihardjo en Anne Kors-Walraven
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A number of authors claim that the Dutch government is using the words safety and security more often and more broadly. In this article we show that this is partly true. By studying the usage of the word safety in the Dutch queen’s speeches, we see that especially from 1999 onwards the speeches do contain more references to safety and security issues. Moreover, more and more topics are defined as a safety and security issue. However, this same study shows that a decline in the use of the words safety and security can be discerned from 2006 onwards. Ideas to understand these fluctuations are presented at the end of the article.


Sandra Resodihardjo
Dr. S.L. (Sandra) Resodihardjo is werkzaam als universitair docent bij het Institute for Management Research (opleiding Bestuurskunde), Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen. E-mail: s.resodihardjo@fm.ru.nl

Anne Kors-Walraven
A.M. (Anne) Kors-Walraven, MSc is afgestudeerd aan het Instituut Bestuurskunde, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Universiteit Leiden.
Artikel

Over objectieve en subjectieve onveiligheid

En de (on)zin van het rationaliteitdebat

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 4 2011
Trefwoorden fear of crime, fear victimization paradox, rationality debate
Auteurs Stefaan Pleysier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution focuses on ‘fear of crime’ research. Departing from the classic distinction between crime and victimization as objective threats, on the one hand, and fear of crime as a subjective and emotional interpretation of that threat, on the other hand, the research tradition is confronted with the so-called fear victimization paradox. This paradox emerges from the observation that fear of crime is greater among women and elderly people, while these groups actually are less at risk of becoming a crime victim. It has immersed the research tradition in a dominant debate on the rationality of the fear of crime, with two opposing paradigms: rationalist and symbolic.Whilst both the paradox and the different paradigms in the debate offer a view at the core of fear of crime research, and illustrate how similar empirical observations can lead to differing explanations, and policy implications for that matter, we argue that the fear victimization paradox and the rationality debate surrounding this paradox, has occupied the bulk of research on fear of crime with what is essentially a nonsensical and redundant debate.


Stefaan Pleysier
Prof. dr. S. (Stefaan) Pleysier is docent Jeugdcriminologie en Methoden van onderzoek aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de K.U.Leuven, en verbonden aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (LINC) waar hij co-coördinator is van de onderzoekslijn Jeugdcriminologie. E-mail: stefaan.pleysier@law.kuleuven.be
Artikel

Integrale veiligheidszorg en de burgemeester

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2011
Trefwoorden integraal, burgemeester, veiligheidsbeleid, religie
Auteurs Ruth Prins en Lex Cachet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Changing public safety problems as well as an increasing societal demand for public safety made way for new policy approaches. During the 1990s, the so called ‘integral safety approach’ was introduced in the Netherlands. This approach manifested itself mainly on the municipal level where the mayor is being held responsible for managing public safety and order. The central question raised in this article is: what are the consequences of an integral approach to public safety problems for the mayor when managing local order and public safety? We will demonstrate that ‘integrality’ is no clear cut concept. Careful inspection of the concept learns that it has multiple meanings. Of these various meanings, especially the ambition to address public safety problems by means of ‘new alliances’ characterized the actual implementation of integral policies. However, working together within these new alliances uniting various more or less independent actors from both the public and private sector, seemed to be hampered by a lack of coordination and control. In that sense, the introduction of the integral approach had consequences for steering and control of public safety policies. These consequences have to be addressed, especially by the mayor who is accountable for local order and safety. The mayor had attributed to him – first in practice, soon by law as well – the role of director of public safety policy on the municipal level. However, as we will demonstrate in this article, the mayor lacks an important trait needed for effective directorship: decisive powers. Therefore the mayor is not able to realize effective cooperation between partners within the new alliances of the integral approach to public safety problems. As a potential solution, we will describe the characteristics of a ‘model of anticipation’ granting the mayor a certain level of decisive powers to be used as an ultimum remedium.


Ruth Prins
Ruth Prins MSc is promovendus Burgemeester en Veiligheid, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Contactadres: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50 (kamer M7-06), Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam. Tel. 010-4088714, e-mail: prins@fsw.eur.nl

Lex Cachet
Dr. Lex Cachet is Universitair Hoofddocent Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Opleiding Bestuurskunde. E-mail: cachet@fsw.eur.nl
Artikel

Gemeentelijke regie in de veiligheidszorg

Schets van relevante factoren en een wetsvoorstel

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2010
Trefwoorden gemeente, regie, wetsvoorstel, lokaal veiligheidsbeleid
Auteurs Jan Terpstra en Mirjam Krommendijk
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the local governance of public safety many different organizations are involved. These organizations cooperate in local networks or partnerships to manage problems related to crime and disorder. In the Netherlands the local government should coordinate the cooperation between these organizations and their activities. Research shows that in practice this coordination has many serious shortcomings.
    Therefore the Dutch government proposed a new Act to promote the local government’s capacities to coordinate these networks and local policies of public safety (Wet op de gemeentelijke regierol lokale integrale veiligheid). At this moment this proposal has not yet been submitted to the Dutch Parliament.
    This Act will create new obligations and powers for the local government. According to this Act every four years local councils will have to establish a public safety policy plan based on an analysis of local problems of crime and disorder. Local governments should make formal agreements with the local partner agencies about their activities. Additionally the Act will provide local governments with the power to enforce these cooperation and contributions and to sanction it.
    Research shows that many of the problems that arise in the coordination of these networks and partnerships result from the local governments themselves. Often the governmental support and commitment to local safety issues are insufficient, the local administration is highly fragmented, the coordination is often poorly implemented and local administration often have a bureaucratic culture that is hard to reconcile with the need to react quickly to urgent local problems.
    Considering these problems the authors argue that this proposed Act is not an adequate solution for the problems that arise in the coordination of local safety policies and partnerships.


Jan Terpstra
Prof. dr. ir. Jan Terpstra is hoogleraar Criminologie aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Criminologisch Instituut van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid. E-mail: j.terpstra@jur.ru.nl.

Mirjam Krommendijk
Drs. Mirjam Krommendijk is werkzaam als onderzoeker aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Criminologisch Instituut van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid. E-mail: m.krommendijk@jur.ru.nl.
Artikel

Lokaal veiligheidsbeleid in Nederland en België: op zoek naar verschil

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2010
Trefwoorden lokaal veiligheidsbeleid, politie, gemeente, Nederland en België
Auteurs Lex Cachet en Ruth Prins
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Public safety has always been a core task for local, municipal authorities. However, until rather recently only the police has been actively involved in addressing local problems of public safety and maintaining order instead. Local public safety policy – as a responsibility for local authorities together with many other partners – is a relatively new phenomenon.This article compares the main developments and trends in local public safety policy in the Netherlands and Belgium. Special attention is paid to the role and position of the local, municipal authorities. What strikes most, are the strong similarities between the two countries. National governments played an important and catalyzing role in the development of public safety policy in the Netherlands as well as in Belgium. After many years and not without a lot of trouble, the monopoly of the police on designing and implementing policy for addressing public safety and order came to an end in both countries. Which, amongst other effects, presented the local authorities with new challenges.


Lex Cachet
Dr. Lex Cachet is universitair hoofddocent Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Opleiding Bestuurskunde. E-mail: cachet@fsw.eur.nl.

Ruth Prins
Ruth Prins MSc is promovendus Burgemeester en Veiligheid, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Opleiding Bestuurskunde. E-mail: prins@fsw.eur.nl.
Artikel

Het beoordelen van risico’s: een subjectieve zaak

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2010
Trefwoorden Risicoperceptie, Heuristieken, Risicocommunicatie
Auteurs Jop Groeneweg
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In measuring safety a difference appears to exist between ‘objectively measured safety’ and the subjective perception by the public. Objectively spoken the level of criminality in a neighbourhood may have gone down, but that doesn’t necessary mean that the people living there ‘feel equally safer’. Psychology gives a number of explanations for this phenomenon. For example, the knowledge, the differences in thinking styles and communication about safety with citizens play an important role. This should not be seen as a case of non-rational thinking, but rather of systematic irrationality. These people are not ‘dumb’, they have (sometimes hard-wired) ways of handling information about complex issues like safety that require them to take ‘mental shortcuts’ (heuristics) in order to estimate the risks they are exposed to. This paper will focus on some of the psychological laws that guide our risk perception and surprisingly enough, the ‘objective risk’ seems to be of relatively little importance if compared with other, more subjective factors. Many of the factors relate to the nature of information citizens are exposed to: a risk that this described in easy to imagine way leads to a different evaluation of that risk compared with a less conspicuous presentation. Also the level of expertise of the ‘receiving end’ must be taken into account. Lay-people have different ways to look at risks compared with experts in a certain domain. The discussion on how to improve safety is probably best served with a continuing debate between ‘rational, objective’ and ‘systematic irrational, subjective’ mental models, while recognising their respective strengths and weaknesses. These findings may assist policy makers in particular in the formulation of policy that, in addition to the security objective as such, also improves the perception of safety.


Jop Groeneweg
Jop Groeneweg is Projectleider Menselijk falen bij de Werkgroep Veiligheid, Universiteit Leiden, Postbus 9555, 2300 RB Leiden. E-mail: groeneweg@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.