Zoekresultaat: 19 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Jaar 2016 x Rubriek Discussion x
Opinion

Access_open Do We Want 'More or Fewer' Prosecutions of Opinions? The Geert Wilders Trial 2.0

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Geert Wilders, hate speech, freedom of opinion, District Court of The Hague, conviction
Auteurs Jogchum Vrielink
Auteursinformatie

Jogchum Vrielink
Jogchum Vrielink is a guest professor at the Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en droit constitutionnel, Université Saint-Louis (Brussels) and at the Faculty of Canon Law, University of Leuven.
Discussie

Access_open Positief veiligheidsbeleid ook mogelijk met oorlogstaal?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden role models, responsivity, gang prevention, desistance, applied science
Auteurs dr. Jan Dirk de Jong
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    How could positive security policies take shape? On what kind of empirical research should these policies be based? And what sort of concepts would we need for this development? If the starting point is to understand safety as a positive notion, it seems wise to avoid the terms of war that are prevailing in current policy programs on security and public safety (fighting, frontline and city-marines). On the other hand some type of decisive jargon might be unavoidable when one sets out to have an actual impact on youth crime policies and policy makers. Is it possible to keep using some type of military terminology in research benefitting the development of positive security policies and still emphasize a positive composition? This dilemma has arisen in recent research activities on positive, street-oriented role models in response to Dutch problematic youth groups and youth at risk. De Jong argues that with the sensitizing concept of the ‘liaison officer’ it might be possible to encourage a positive change through applied social science.


dr. Jan Dirk de Jong
Dr. Jan Dirk de Jong is lector Aanpak Jeugdcriminaliteit, Cluster Social Work & Toegepaste Psychologie aan de Hogeschool Leiden, en wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de sectie Criminologie, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Discussie

Access_open Positieve criminologie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden securitas, rule of law, Polizeiwissenschaft, politeia, democracy
Auteurs prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Positive security is a very promising development in criminology. The ‘movement’ reconnects the current debate on crime with the origins of ancient Greek thinking on the positive nature of politeia, policy and policing. Securitas - providing safety and security for the common good - has a long and rich tradition. Good governance is about many things, but foremost about providing security in society. Polizeiwissenschaft in 18th and 19th century Prussia made a distinction between Wohlfahrt- and Sicherheitspolizei.
    The latter is outright dangerous because security becomes equated with negative connotations: the other, the enemies of the state, the drug war and more recently the war in terror. In times like these the positive qualities of securitas become inflated. Human rights, privacy and the rule of law are no longer viewed in positive terms. Therefore I advocate the positive security movement. But the author is worried about two things. Firstly, the current Zeitgeist which is charged with xenophobia and war like languages. And, secondly the fact that the ‘movement’ is limited to a few rebels with a cause. The mainstream of criminology is not really interested in reconnecting with the philosophical positive roots of securitas. Mainstream criminology fosters the status quo and is financially too depended on the state to actually follow the new heroes of positivity. The only way out is to develop a following but this requires academics to actually take a stand.


prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom
Prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom is hoogleraar fraude en regulering aan de Nyenrode Business Universiteit.
Discussie

Een beetje merkbaar mag wel

Een reactie op de column van Paul Glazener, ‘Hoe merkbaar moet het zijn?’, M&M 2016/2, p. 97-98

Tijdschrift Markt & Mededinging, Aflevering 4 2016
Auteurs Alvaro Pliego Selie
Auteursinformatie

Alvaro Pliego Selie
Mr. A.A.J. Pliego Selie is advocaat bij Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.
Discussie

KEI en ODR: hand in hand vooruit

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, online courts, access to justice, ADR
Auteurs Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Is online dispute resolution (ODR) the way to organise 100% access to justice? Or is it more of a bubble-solution looking for a problem? Experiences are mixed but there are reasons to be optimistic. A Dutch example of an online divorce platform show how technology can better serve the justice needs of citizens. But for that we need to stop thinking in terms of ADR, ODR and court litigation but rather design more hybrid processes.


Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
Jin Ho Verdonschot is directeur HiiL Rechtwijzer Technology en een van de grondleggers van het Rechtwijzer platform.
Discussie

KEI voorbij met ODR

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, Courts, court users, dispute resolution, digital court
Auteurs Dory Reiling
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘I felt so sorry for you, such a lovely tool, and then you have no users!’ This was one of the comments after my presentation of the eKantonrechter at ODR 2016, organized by HiiL in The Hague in May 2016. ODR, online dispute resolution, was presented as a tool to solve all problems in the 4th Trend Report by HIIL after the conference. Arno Lodder, in a weblog, commented that ODR had raised hopes in its early promoters, but had not really taken off.
    ODR is a tool to help parties in the dispute resolve their problem. There are various examples of ODR tool: supporting double blind bidding to determine a sum of money, working out divorce settlements, negotiating a solution and taking a case to court.
    Interesting research questions abound in the area of ODR and its users: What paths do people take when trying to resolve a problem? How can people have ownership of their court procedure? How can solutions, ODR and court procedures, best be tailored to the type of problem?
    ODR and its users is a field in which law and society researchers can effectively contribute to improving digital problem solving and dispute resolution procedures in court.


Dory Reiling
Dory Reiling is senior rechter in Amsterdam, en product owner van KEI Civiel. Ze promoveerde op “Technology for Justice, how IT can support judicial reform”. Ze blogt over IT en rechtspraak op mr-online en haar Technology for Justice-blog. Ze twittert op @doryontour, haar publicaties staan op www.doryreiling.com.
Discussie

Het episodisch geheugen en getuigenverhoor: wat moeten politieverhoorders hiervan weten?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden Episodic memory, Interviewing witnesses, Quality interviews, Police practice
Auteurs Drs. Imke Rispens en Adri van Amelsvoort
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Last year the article ‘Episodic memory and interviewing witnesses. What do police interviewers know about this topic?’ (Odinot, Boon & Wolters, 2015, TvC, 57(3), 279-299) was published in this journal. The article describes a study that explored the knowledge of police interviewers about episodic memory. The researchers concluded that police interviewers had insufficient knowledge of episodic memory and that this was related to the lack of psychological terms in the manual of the curriculum of police training. In this article we describe the lack of scientific consensus about episodic memory and the consequences of this for doing research with lists with theses about this subject. Differences between interviewing witnesses and suspects will be discussed. We also question whether it is necessary that police interviewers have thorough knowledge of episodic memory. More important is what knowledge does police need when doing interviews and how are these conducted? Some factors have a negative impact on the quality of those interviews, so we end up with some recommendations for improving the quality of interviews in police practice.


Drs. Imke Rispens
Drs. I.W. Rispens is recherchepsycholoog en als docent en gedragswetenschapper werkzaam bij de Politieacademie.

Adri van Amelsvoort
A.G. van Amelsvoort is freelance senior adviseur en docent. Hij was daarvoor hoofdinspecteur van politie in de functie van teamleider en kennismakelaar bij de Politieacademie. Hij is redacteur van de recherche-onderwerpen in de digitale kennisbank van Stapel & De Koning.

Dr. Geralda Odinot
Dr. G. Odinot is wetenschappelijk onderzoeker en interviewtrainer bij How2Ask.

Drs. Roel Boon
Drs. R. Boon MCI is verhoorspecialist bij de Nationale Politie en wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de Politieacademie.

Antonietta Pinkster
Antonietta Pinkster is MfN-register mediator en advocaat, en bestuurslid van de Vereniging van mediators in strafzaken (VMSZ).
Discussie

Naschrift

Tijdschrift Onderneming en Financiering, Aflevering 2 2016
Auteurs Mr. M.R.C. van Zoest
Auteursinformatie

Mr. M.R.C. van Zoest
Mr. M.R.C. van Zoest is advocaat bij CORP. advocaten te Amsterdam

Mr. M.C. Schepel
Mr. M.C. Schepel is advocaat bij Steins Bisschop & Schepel te Den Haag.
Discussie

UNGASS 2016: in de Weense houdgreep

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden UNGASS, drug policy, war on drugs, harm reduction
Auteurs Pien Metaal MA
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution aims to discuss the main outcomes of the recent UNGASS (United Nations General Assembly Special Session) on Drugs that took place in New York from 19 to 21 April 2016. Based on my own participation in the preparatory discussions and political negotiations as civil society representative (through the work of NGO Transnational Institute), I argue that political divisions and entrenched institutional dynamics have transformed what could have been the beginning of the end of the war on drugs into a wasted opportunity for changing the status quo of the present world regime regarding the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs. Despite high initial expectations after several governments expressed a clear concern about the effects of purely repressive policies, and the UN decision to organize the session 3 years earlier than planned, very soon it was clear that the session would not imply real changes in the current policies. The agenda setting was non-transparent and controlled by the most conservative factions and countries, largely excluding the views from NGO’s and academics in the final adopted resolution. The final document poorly reflects the rich discussions and developments that are taking place in many countries of the world, particularly the debates and policy developments in ‘the Americas’. A positive note is that the unchanged international UN conventions on drugs can hardly cope with developments taking place on cannabis policies in countries such as Canada, Uruguay, United States or Jamaica. Also other countries are more and more prepared to push for change on other essential questions, including the application of death penalty for drug offences, the access to controlled medicines, or the explicit application of ‘harm reduction’ approaches.


Pien Metaal MA
Pien Metaal, MA, is programmacoördinator van het Drugs & Democracy programma van het Transnational Institute (TNI), waar ze werkzaam is sinds 2002. Ze heeft veel artikelen, rapporten en bijdragen voor boeken geschreven over drugsbeleid in Latijns Amerika sinds 1996.
Discussie

Veranderingen in de visie op druggebruik – van een strafrechtelijk naar een gezondheidsparadigma

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden drug policy, paradigms, criminalisation, harm reduction, health problem
Auteurs drs. Franz Trautmann
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Various studies show that the views on the drug problem and appropriate policy responses have undergone profound changes from the 1960s onward. This article is analysing one of these changes, the decriminalisation of drug use, reflecting a fundamental change of view: understanding drug use as a health issue and not as crime. A useful heuristic to understand this type of change is Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm concept. He sees a paradigm as a set of beliefs that are shared by a scientific community and accepted by a wider community. A paradigm change is therefore a socio-psychological process rather than rooted in new scientific or research facts.
    The author analyses the change from the dominance of a crime to the dominance of a health paradigm reflecting its social-historic context, starting with the widely shared concerns about substance use related health problems in the 20th century. These concerns translated into two different views on the essence of these problems, a crime and a health paradigm. The first served as fundament of the international drug control efforts, resulting in the still governing drug prohibition. Yet, the health paradigm was also of influence from the start and gradually gained weight. From the 1970s onwards the health paradigm became more important as part of a wider reform movement. It started in the Netherlands and the UK as bottom-up process criticising criminalising the users of illicit drugs as inappropriate, detrimental for their health and inhumane. The health paradigm was seen as more appropriate.
    The author reflects on the benefits and disadvantages of the health paradigm. Its primary benefit is that it helps to understand the health problems related to drug use. A key disadvantage is its close relationship with the disease paradigm. The latter fits well with the generally negative view on drugs as dangerous or evil. It is encompassing the risk of ‘pathologising’ all forms of drug use and denying phenomena of unproblematic use for, among other things, recreational or spiritual purposes. Like the crime paradigm it can serve for control purposes. The drug user remains subject of control or disciplining policies and is not in charge of his/her own life. An additional problematic issue is that ‘softening’ the approach towards the users seems to be mirrored by a harder, more punitive approach to the producers and sellers of the substances, which are seen as villains, making available the drugs which deserve harsh punishment for ‘devastating’ the lives of users.
    The author concludes with a short discussion of the well-being paradigm as possible alternative for the health paradigm. It covers a broader spectrum than the health paradigm and helps to grasp the negative impact of (problem) drug use, reducing well-being, but is also useful in understanding the positive sides, enhancing well-being.


drs. Franz Trautmann
Drs. Franz Trautmann was Senior Drug Policy Advisor bij het Trimbos-instituut in Nederland. Hij werkte meer dan tien jaar aan harm reduction-programma’s in Amsterdam en leidde sinds 1990 tal van nationale en internationale projecten rond de ontwikkeling van preventie, behandeling en harm reduction-programma’s in verschillende landen en kwalitatief, praktijkgericht onderzoek (Rapid Assessment and Response). De laatste vijftien jaar legde hij zich tevens toe op onderzoek naar het functioneren van de internationale drugsmarkt en naar de beleidsrespons daarop. Enkele weken na het aanleveren van de laatste versie van zijn bijdrage, op 11 juni 2016, overleed hij geheel onverwacht.

Marjoleine Zieck
Dr. Marjoleine Zieck is Professor of International Refugee Law at the Amsterdam Law School of the University of Amsterdam, and Professor of Public International Law at the Pakistan College of Law, Lahore.

Jacques Claessen
Jacques Claessen is universitair docent straf(proces)recht bij de vakgroep strafrecht en criminologie van de Universiteit Maastricht en rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de Rechtbank Limburg. Daarnaast is hij redacteur van dit tijdschrift. Van zijn hand verscheen onder meer Vergeving in het strafrecht via de implementatie van herstelbemiddeling, Wolf Legal Publishers (2015). In 2012 ontving hij de Herman Bianchi herstelrecht-prijs.

Nick Huls
Nick Huls is emeritus hoogleraar rechtssociologie aan de Erasmus School of Law en de Universiteit Leiden. Hij is tevens a visiting professor aan de Law Faculty of the University of Pretoria.

    Self-regulation not always implies autonomy. Spontaneous self-regulation should be distinguished from commissioned self-regulation. The latter form of self-regulation is nowadays widespread and the result of outsourcing governmental activities. Outsourcing can be conceptualized in terms of Principal-Agent relations, in which the P commissions an A to realize P’s aims. In commissioned self-regulation the A is often constituted by the P and required to make rules in order to advance P’s aims. However, rule-making is not an activity which remains unaltered if it changes hands. In a context of spontaneous self-regulation rules fulfill a variety of functions. They guide actions and decision-making, they serve as both justification and as criticism of actions and decisions, and will thereby limit arbitrariness. In commissioned self-regulation, these manifold functions tend to be reduced to one dominant function: justifying performances towards P. In the latter capacity rules tend to be formalized and presented in a format that enables the P to arrive efficiently at a decision. Moreover, for the P the content of the rules matters less than their existence. The degree in which the external function of rules prevails determines not only how rules are presented but also how they are drafted and selected. The more A anticipates the perspective of P, the more autonomy risks to be undermined.


Pauline Westerman
Pauline Westerman is hoogleraar Rechtfilosofie aan de Faculteit Rechten van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en is tevens verbonden als staflid aan de Academie voor Wetgeving en Overheidsjuristen. Zij publiceerde in 2012 het boek Recht als Raadsel bij uitgeverij Paris, (nu tevens in het Zweeds vertaald) en bereidt momenteel een monografie voor die zal uitkomen bij Elgar Publishers onder de titel Outsourcing the law: a philosophy of regulation.

J. Kien
J. Kien was tot december 2015 avocat au Barreau de Paris en advocaat te Rotterdam. Voorheen was hij juridisch directeur bij Alstom Transport Azië en Grote Projecten bij EDF. Hij treedt geregeld op als arbiter in internationale geschillen.

Dr. Ben Vollaard
Dr. B.A. Vollaard is universitair docent economie aan de Universiteit Tilburg.
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.