Zoekresultaat: 10 artikelen

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

Kiezen voor stadsrepublieken? Over administratieve afhandeling van overlast in de steden

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden social disorder, incivility, governance, communal sanctions, Mayor
Auteurs Elke Devroe
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The theme of governing anti-social behaviour and incivilities in the public space became more important on the policy and research agenda over the last twenty years. This article describes the law on incivilities in Belgium, namely the ‘administrative communal sanctions’ (GAS). This law is studied in a broader context of contemporary crime control and its organizing patterns. The development of the politics of behaviour can be explained by different characteristics of the period referred to as the late modernity. In the dissertation ‘A culture of control?’ (Devroe 2012) we studied the application and the concrete strategies behind the governance of incivilities on a national and on a city level. The incivility law broadened the competences of the Mayor and the city council especially in the completion of anti social behaviour and public disorder problems in his/her municipality. Instead of being dealt with on a traditional judicial way by the police magistrate, the Mayor can, by this law; himself lay on fines until maximum 250 euro. We mention ‘city republics’ as this punitive sanction became a locally assigned matter, which means that one municipality differs from another in their ‘incivility policy’. Due to the split up of competences of the Belgian state arrangements of 1988, each municipality finds itself framed in different political and organisational executive realities. In this view, Mayors can be called ‘presidents’ of their own municipality, keeping and controlling the process of tackling incivilities as their main responsibility and determining what behaviour had to be controlled and punished and what behaviour can be considered as normal decent behaviour in the public space. Problems of creating a ‘culture of control’, creating inequality for the poor, the beggars and the socially ‘unwanted’ can arise, especially in big cities.


Elke Devroe
Dr. Elke Devroe is Universitair Hoofddocent Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht & Criminologie, Universiteit Leiden. E-mail: e.devroe@law.leidenuniv.nl
Artikel

Legitimiteit via procedurele rechtvaardigheid: kunnen herstelrechtelijke praktijken de maatschappelijke legitimiteit van het strafrecht verhogen?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden procedural justice, legitimacy,, restorative justice, mediation,, perceptions of fairness
Auteurs Vicky De Mesmaecker
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Contemporary scholarly literature is full of references to the crisis of the criminal justice system. The general public seems to increasingly lose confidence in the criminal justice system and its actors. In this article we look into the potential manners in which restorative justice practices can enhance the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Our analysis is based on the observation that by actively engaging victims and defendants in the resolution of their conflict, restorative practices seem to accommodate a necessary condition of procedural fairness. Since research on procedural justice and legitimacy in turn suggests that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system is based largely upon its perceived procedural fairness, we investigate whether participation in restorative practices improves perceptions of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. To that end we describe the results of a qualitative study on the experiences of victims and defendants who participated in victim-offender mediation in Belgium. Relating their experiences to the antecedents of procedural justice as described in the literature, we find that restorative practices in different ways enhance perceptions of procedural fairness. Yet these perceptions do not necessarily reflect on the criminal justice system. Our analysis suggests that the degree to which the perceptions of procedural fairness resulting from participation in a restorative practice influence an individual’s perceptions of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system depends on whether the restorative practice is seen as an integral part of the criminal proceedings. We found, for example, that this is more likely to be the case if the judge at trial formally acknowledges the parties’ participation in mediation. We conclude that more research on the degree to which people perceive the restorative practice to be a part of the criminal proceedings is needed in order to further flesh out this issue.


Vicky De Mesmaecker
Dr. Vicky De Mesmaecker is vrijwillig wetenschappelijk medewerker aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (LINC, KULeuven) en Visiting Researcher aan Yale Law School. Email: vicky.demesmaecker@law.kuleuven.be
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

Regulering in een hybride veiligheidszorg

Over de bewaking van een publiek goed in een deels geprivatiseerd bestel

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 4 2011
Trefwoorden regulation, security, privatization, public good, self-regulation
Auteurs Jan Terpstra
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper deals with the question of how a partly privatized security sector could be regulated. A central aim of this regulation should be the control of security as a public good. Three models of regulation are analyzed. The current practice of this regulation in the Netherlands shows a serious lack of effectiveness. One of our main conclusions is that neither the state nor the private sector is able to enforce this regulation on their own. However, it is assumed that the state should have a central and integrated regulatory role in this field, with more attention paid to the practical implementation of it, with the power and will to sanction private agencies if necessary. In addition managers of private security companies should adopt a role as public managers with a public moral duty. Regulation of security is faced with a double problematic, not only the horizontal fragmentation of the field, but also the vertical fragmentation, often resulting in a serious gap between managers and those in the field, both in the public and the private sector. This implies that the regulation should not only rest on the state and on self-regulation by the sector at management level, but also on the promotion of a practical ethic for security workers to steer and regulate their daily work.


Jan Terpstra
Prof. dr. ir. J.B. (Jan) Terpstra is werkzaam bij het Criminologisch Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen. E-mail: j.terpstra@jur.ru.nl
Artikel

Jazzy structures

Een slotbeschouwing over de toekomst van veiligheid

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 4 2011
Auteurs Hans Boutellier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The author provides a discussion of the articles in this issue of the Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid (Journal on Security) on the occasion of its tenth anniversary. He notes that there is an increasing hybridising, subjectification and fragmentation in the security area. The increasing interweaving of security politics seems to apply least to a common approach in ‘social security and physical safety issues’ (crime control and disaster and crisis management), while exactly this was aimed for in so-called integral security politics. According to the author that is the case because of ‘the moral pin’, which plays a dominant role in crime, but not in safety issues. The entanglement of forms of security identified by the author has a normative basis – it comes from the social order of an increasingly complex society. For the future an ever greater responsibilisation can be expected, in which the perception of security becomes even more important than it is now already. Not a big orchestrated security policy, but jazzy structures will then determine the prospects.


Hans Boutellier
Prof. dr. J.C.J. (Hans) Boutellier is algemeen directeur van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut en 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

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

Gemeenschap als bron van positieve veiligheid

Een conceptuele verkenning en aanzet tot empirisch onderzoek

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2010
Trefwoorden gemeenschap, sociale cohesie, sense of belonging, insluiting
Auteurs Ronald van Steden, Marieke van Vliet, Ton Salman e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article explores the links between the concepts of security and community, questioning the conventional use and meaning of both. To begin with, it addresses the taken-for-grantedness of the thought that communities foster feelings of security, and that contemporary processes of migration, intensified worldwide communication, and ‘heterogeneization’ of habitats stimulate feelings of insecurity and nostalgia for ‘old-fashioned’ tight kinship. Subsequently, it criticizes the too lop-sided focus on insecurity in current debates, and asks attention for – community-based – positive feelings of security. In the next paragraphs, however, the problematic aspects of the idea of ‘community’ are discussed: its inadequacy in capturing current individualized ways-of-life, its exclusionary tendencies, its potentially exaggerated focus on social control, and its rejection of, and fear for, the outside world. Therefore, we assess the possibility to construe (‘strong’) community qualities in a situation of multiple, overlapping and porous populations of varied identity-relevance within overarching institutional arrangements of rule of law and of shared codes of conduct (as ‘weak’ ties). Finally, the argument is translated in suggestions for empirical research to be able to determine the fecundity of the ideas presented.


Ronald van Steden
Ronald van Steden is universitair docent aan de afdeling bestuurswetenschappen van de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. E-mail: r.van.steden@fsw.vu.nl.

Marieke van Vliet
Marieke van Vliet is cultureel antropologe. Zij is werkzaam als recherchekundige bij de regiopolitie Amsterdam-Amstelland. E-mail: marieke.van.vliet@amsterdam.politie.nl.

Ton Salman
Ton Salman is universitair hoofddocent aan de afdeling culturele antropologie van de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. E-mail: aj.salman@fsw.vu.nl.

Hans Boutellier
Hans Boutellier is algemeen directeur van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut en hoogleraar Veiligheid & Burgerschap aan de Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.E-mail: jcj.boutellier@fsw.vu.nl.
Artikel

Onbekend, maar wel bemind

Inbraakpreventief advies in België

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 3 2009
Trefwoorden preventie, woninginbraak, slachtofferschap, sociale ongelijkheid
Auteurs Leen Symons, Johan Deklerck, Dave Gelders e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since the mid-90s, people can obtain ‘burglary prevention advice’ in Belgium, which means that a burglary prevention adviser will carry out a free assessment of the dwelling regarding the protection against a burglary and will recommend security measures as needed. In 2008, a large-scale survey by postal mail, commissioned and financed by the Belgian Ministry of Internal Affairs, was conducted to examine three main questions concerning burglary prevention advice in Belgium. Firstly, who receives a burglary prevention visit, or in other words what are the demographic characteristics of the citizens who obtain advice? Secondly, what is the extent to which these persons are satisfied with the visit and which elements, related to the advice, are associated with this (dis)satisfaction? Finally, do these citizens implement the proposed prevention measures and what is the role of the financial incentives (e.g. a tax deduction and an investment subsidy) concerning this implementation? Using a stratified random sample, 2,123 citizens were selected of whom ultimately 1,193 persons answered and returned the questionnaire. This paper presents the main findings of this study. We will also draw attention to the risk of an increased societal dualization and exclusion in the field of community safety when burglary prevention becomes predominantly the responsibility of the individual. The results of our survey for instance suggest that certain groups in society, namely the lower educated, tenants and apartment dwellers, are insufficiently sensitized to call upon these advisers. Furthermore, mainly the higher educated and those with higher incomes plan to make use of the possibility of tax deduction.


Leen Symons
Leen Symons werkt als praktijkassistent bij het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). E-mail: leen.symons@law.kuleuven.be.

Johan Deklerck
Johan Deklerck is als hoofddocent verbonden aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). E-mail: johan.deklerck@law.kuleuven.be.

Dave Gelders
Dave Gelders is als universitair docent verbonden aan de School voor Massacommunicatieresearch (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). E-mail: dave.gelders@soc.kuleuven.be.

Dr. Stefaan Pleysier
Stefaan Pleysier is coördinator van het Expertisecentrum Maatschappelijke Veiligheid (KATHO-Ipsoc), en deeltijds verbonden aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven).E-mail: stefaan.pleysier@katho.be.
Artikel

De Collectieve Winkelontzegging

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 2 2009
Trefwoorden winkelontzegging, overlast, (on)veiligheid, voorzorgsprincipe
Auteurs Loes Wesselink, Marc Schuilenburg en Patrick Van Calster
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Public Private Partnerships (PPS) are becoming one of the most popular answers to problems of crime and disorder. In this contribution, the authors research the Collective Shop Ban, maybe the most successful form of Public Private Partnerships currently operating in the Netherlands. A Collective Shop Ban is a civil measure bestowed upon a person by the shop owner, when s/he displays ‘unwanted behaviour’. As a consequence entry can be denied for every shop assembled in the association of entrepreneurs. In 2007 almost 900 people have been denied access to over 450 shops in the city centre of The Hague. This new form of collaboration between police, public prosecution service and entrepreneurs has already been rewarded with the Regional Crime Control Platform ‘safety award’. However, the authors question the effects of this collaboration. They argue that the Collective Shop Ban creates its own public of ‘unwanted shoppers’, that can be banned from a shopping area by devising new terms of exclusion. This ‘public’ is subjected to new means of power, to be applied by private security guards and shop owners. While entrepreneurs celebrate the possibilities of this civil measure, the authors warn for the juridical and ethical consequences of this measure.


Loes Wesselink
Loes Wesselink is criminologe en werkt als junior onderzoeker bij het COT Instituut voor Veiligheids- en Crisismanagement in Den Haag. E-mail: wesselink.loes@gmail.com.

Marc Schuilenburg
Marc Schuilenburg doceert aan de vakgroep Criminologie van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. E-mail: m.b.schuilenburg@rechten.vu.nl.

Patrick Van Calster
Patrick Van Calster is universitair hoofddocent aan het departement strafrecht en criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden. E-mail: p.j.v..van.calster@law.leidenuniv.nl.
Artikel

De Collectieve Winkelontzegging

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2009
Trefwoorden winkelontzegging, overlast, (on)veiligheid, voorzorgsprincipe
Auteurs Loes Wesselink, Marc Schuilenburg en Patrick Van Calster
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Public Private Partnerships (PPS) are becoming one of the most popular answers to problems of crime and disorder. In this contribution, the authors research the Collective Shop Ban, maybe the most successful form of Public Private Partnerships currently operating in the Netherlands. A Collective Shop Ban is a civil measure bestowed upon a person by the shop owner, when s/he displays ‘unwanted behaviour’. As a consequence entry can be denied for every shop assembled in the association of entrepreneurs. In 2007 almost 900 people have been denied access to over 450 shops in the city centre of The Hague. This new form of collaboration between police, public prosecution service and entrepreneurs has already been rewarded with the Regional Crime Control Platform ‘safety award’. However, the authors question the effects of this collaboration. They argue that the Collective Shop Ban creates its own public of ‘unwanted shoppers’, that can be banned from a shopping area by devising new terms of exclusion. This ‘public’ is subjected to new means of power, to be applied by private security guards and shop owners. While entrepreneurs celebrate the possibilities of this civil measure, the authors warn for the juridical and ethical consequences of this measure.


Loes Wesselink
Loes Wesselink is criminologe en werkt als junior onderzoeker-adviseur bij het COT Instituut voor Veiligheids- en Crisismanagement in Den Haag.E-,mail: wesselink.loes@gmail.com

Marc Schuilenburg
Marc Schuilenburg doceert aan de vakgroep Criminologie van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. E-mail: m.b.schuilenburg@rechten.vu.nl.

Patrick Van Calster
Patrick Van Calster is universitair hoofddocent aan het departement strafrecht en criminologie van de Universiteit Leiden.E-mail: p.j.v.van.calster@law.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.