Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid x Jaar 2012 x Rubriek Artikel x
Artikel

Kunst en/of criminaliteit

De ene graffiti is de andere niet

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2012
Trefwoorden graffiti, perceptie, overlast, visuele methoden, verwijderingsbeleid
Auteurs Gabry Vanderveen en Funda Jelsma
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Graffiti has been linked in empirical studies to disorder, fear of crime, avoidance behavior, vandalism and delinquency. In most of those studies, graffiti is treated as an abstract and uniform concept: no distinctions are made between one graffiti or another. Policies based on this assumption hold a zero tolerance approach, meaning all graffiti is deemed undesirable and is or should be removed. This has been criticized by several (theoretical) studies. On the other hand however, ethnographic studies present graffiti as a multifaceted phenomenon, serving as a means of communication, resistance and protest or as an art form. The current study investigates the assumption that graffiti is perceived as a homogeneous and undesirable environmental feature. This article examines whether graffiti is actually perceived uniformly by Dutch citizens, and if not how people distinguish between different graffiti; which types of graffiti are perceived as disorder and whether different types of people exist based on their attitudes towards graffiti. An extensive questionnaire was designed, based on a thorough analysis of the literature and empirical pilot studies. A nationally representative sample responded to general questions with respect to graffiti and judged eighteen specific examples of graffiti on a reliable scale that measured perceived disorder. Results indicate that people vary enormously in their ideas and attitudes. Also, not every graffiti is the same, meaning graffiti is not a homogeneous, uniform phenomenon. Both type of graffiti and the location on which the graffiti is situated relate to the degree of perceived disorder. For example, tags, small scribbles, were considered a public nuisance more than pieces, large colorful images. Also, graffiti on a house or car is perceived much more as disorder than graffiti in a skatepark. The diversity in views necessitates a normative


Gabry Vanderveen
Dr. G.N.G. (Gabry) Vanderveen is universitair docent criminologie aan de Universiteit Leiden, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie. Postbus 9520, 2300 RA Leiden. E-mail: g.n.g.vanderveen@law.leidenuniv.nl

Funda Jelsma
Funda Jelsma MSc is als docent-onderzoeker verbonden aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Geen angst, maar onbehagen

Resultaten van een Q-studie naar subjectieve sociale onveiligheid

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2012
Trefwoorden anti-social behavior, public perception, risk aversion
Auteurs Remco Spithoven, Gjalt de de Graaf en Hans Boutellier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    People vary in their perceptions and opinions, and that seems to be the case for the way they perceive anti-social behavior too. Scientific literature concerning the fear of crime hypothesizes diversity in the public’s perception of anti-social behavior and crime. But this fear of crime research tradition has been criticized repeatedly for its conceptual and methodological arrears. The focus has particularly been narrowed to ‘fear’ of ‘crime’, being measured by surveys. So, it is not very surprising that there has not been a thorough empirical focus on the assumed diversity in the perception of crime and anti-social behavior. To fill in this gap, the main research question in this article is: which differences in the perception of anti-social behavior exist within contemporary Dutch society? Using Q-methodology, five different factors were found in the perception of anti-social behavior. These factors have been labeled respectively: ‘disaffected residents’, ‘untroubled liberals’, ‘anxious communitarians’, ‘concerned spectators’ and ‘non-averse professionals’. These factors showed the empirical reality of the assumed diversity in the public perception of anti-social behavior. In all of these factors, people seem to address crime and anti-social behavior to a decrease of social standards and values in Dutch society, instead of worrying about chances and consequences of personal victimization. This was even the case for people who signalized crime and anti-social behavior in their own neighborhood. What really stands out is that people strongly agreed about the unacceptability of crime and anti-social behavior. People seem to have an aversion against these rude types of behavior. Altogether this image does not comply to the mainstream image of a ‘crime fearing society’. People do not seem to fear crime, but they seem to be worried and agitated about the moral conditions of the Dutch society in a wider framework. This might be a more reassuring illustration than a ‘crime fearing society’, but this proposition needs further and additional quantitative assessment.


Remco Spithoven
Remco Spithoven MSc is promovendus bij het lectoraat Participatie en Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling aan de Hogeschool Utrecht, in samenwerking met de leerstoel Burgerschap en Veiligheid aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam en docent integrale veiligheidskunde bij het Instituut voor Veiligheid aan de Hogeschool Utrecht. E-mail: remco.spithoven@hu.nl

Gjalt de de Graaf
Dr. Gjalt de Graaf is universitair hoofddocent bestuurswetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Afdeling Bestuurswetenschappen, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam.

Hans Boutellier
Prof. dr. J.C.J. (Hans) Boutellier is algemeen directeur van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut en bijzonder hoogleraar veiligheid & burgerschap aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Afdeling Bestuurswetenschappen, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam. E-mail: j.c.j.boutellier@vu.nl
Artikel

Uitbuiting uit zicht?

Getuigenverklaringen van gesmokkelde migranten nader bekeken aan de hand van indicatoren voor mensenhandel

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2012
Trefwoorden human trafficking, migrant smuggling, irregular migration, exploitation, illegal employment
Auteurs Joanne van der van der Leun en Anet van van Schijndel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Human trafficking means exploitation; human smuggling is associated with illegal labour and a connection with exploitation is absent. Where a victim of human trafficking can appeal for legal protection, a smuggled migrant (illegally residing or with vulnerable legal status) overall has little rights because of the formal absence of the aspects of exploitation and coercion in human smuggling. In this article, the empirical analysis based on file analysis demonstrates that in several files of cases framed as human smuggling indications are found for exploitation of migrants, although this has not been recognised as such. Theoretically the authors tie this to the trend of crimmigration. Measures designed to combat human trafficking and smuggling are often concentrated on (criminal) law enforcement and criminal punishment, to the detriment of a human rights-based approach. The tension between immigration policy and the combat against human trafficking deserves more attention.


Joanne van der van der Leun
Prof. dr. J.P. (Joanne) van der Leun is hoogleraar criminologie aan de Universiteit Leiden, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie. Postbus 9520, 2300 RA Leiden. E-mail: j.p.vanderleun@law.leidenuniv.nl

Anet van van Schijndel
A.A.A. (Anet) van Schijndel MSc is onderzoeker bij de Algemene Rekenkamer. E-mail: a.vanschijndel@rekenkamer.nl
Artikel

Politieonderzoek in open bronnen op internet

Strafvorderlijke aspecten

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2012
Trefwoorden criminal investigation, surveillance, OSINT, investigation powers, legal basis
Auteurs Bert-Jaap Koops
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Analysing large amounts of data goes to the heart of the challenges confronting intelligence and law enforcement professionals today. Increasingly, this involves Internet data that are ‘open source’ or ‘publicly available’. Projects such as the European FP7 VIRTUOSO aim at developing platforms for open-source intelligence by law enforcement and public security, which open up opportunities for large-scale, automated data gathering and analysis. However, the mere fact that data are publicly available does not imply an absence of restrictions to researching them. This paper investigates one area of legal constraints, namely Dutch criminal-procedure law in relation to open-source data gathering by the police. Which legal basis is there for this activity? And under what conditions can foreign open sources be investigated?
    After sketching the context of the VIRTUOSO project and legal constraints of open-source intelligence in general, this paper discusses provisions of the Dutch Police Act 1993 and the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine which is the correct legal basis for gathering data from openly accessible and semi-open sources. Next, cross-border gathering of data is discussed on the basis of article 32 of the Cybercrime Convention. The paper draws the conclusion that investigating open sources by the police will often go beyond what is allowed on the basis of the general task description of the police (art. 2 Police Act 1993); hence, an order from the Public Prosecutor for systematic observation or intelligence is required. Moreover, the tools used must meet the non-manipulability and auditing requirements of the Dutch Decree on Technical Devices in Criminal Procedure.


Bert-Jaap Koops
Prof. dr. Bert-Jaap Koops is hoogleraar regulering van technologie bij TILT – Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Universiteit van Tilburg. Het onderzoek voor dit artikel werd mede gefinancierd door het Europese KP7-project VIRTUOSO (projectnr. FP7-SEC GA-2009-242352).
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
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.