Criminology has traditionally focused on urban areas where crime visibly concentrates. However, since the 1990s, attention for ‘rural criminology’ has steadily increased. First, rural areas are confronted with partly different and less visible crime problems, such as environmental crimes. Second, public actors such as enforcement and other agencies are less present and ‘available’ in rural areas, and people on average trust the government less to provide support when necessary. This chronicle presents an overview of international and Dutch research in the context of rural criminology. The paper addresses cultural differences between urban and rural areas, high-volume crimes, gender-related violence, alcohol and drug abuse, environmental crime, and enforcement in rural areas. |
Kroniek |
Plattelandscriminologie |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 4 2020 |
Trefwoorden | Rural criminology, Policing, Critical criminology, Cultural criminology, Environmental crime |
Auteurs | Toine Spapens |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Praktijk |
De menselijke factor in cybercrime |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2017 |
Trefwoorden | Cybercriminaliteit, Cybercrime, Cybercriminele netwerken, Kroniek |
Auteurs | Dr. Rutger Leukfeldt en Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg MSc |
Auteursinformatie |
Praktijk |
(On)veiligheid en efficiency als stabiel kompas voor het strafrechtelijk criminaliteitsbeleid |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 1 2015 |
Auteurs | Maartje van der Woude Mr. dr. MSc |
Auteursinformatie |
Praktijk |
De Nederlandse Vereniging voor Criminologie en de ontwikkeling van het vakgebied tussen 1974 en 2014 |
Tijdschrift | Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2014 |
Auteurs | René van Swaaningen |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
For the occasion of the 40 th anniversary of the Netherlands’ Society of Criminology the author has analysed the Society’s archive and related the development of this professional organisation to the development of Dutch criminology in the period between 1974 and 2014. He distinguishes five turning points in this respect: between 1965 and 1974 we witnessed the emancipation of criminology as an autonomous discipline; the period 1978-1985 is characterised by a downfall of criminology at the universities; between 1992 and 1995 a period of restoration started, that is characterised by a focus on criminology’s policy-relevance; from 1999 to 2010 we can witness a recovery, in which academic criminology raised like a phoenix from its ashes; and from that time on we see the discipline broadening up again, in which the dominance of positivist research agendas is countered by a cultural criminology and a more critical attitude towards the production-oriented research policy in general. The bottom line is that the Society followed these trends imperceptibly: it was active when criminology did well and was ‘in rest’ when it did not. The article concludes with the question whether the Society has an active role to play in the public debate about the role of science and crime and punishment. |