In the current study it was investigated to what extent the presence or absence of victim compensation influences public judgments about punishment by the general public. Results show that whether or not the victim is awarded compensation, both in the case of physical assault and burglary, did not influence the extent to which the general public agrees with the punishment imposed by the judge. Participants do consider it important that a victim has the opportunity to apply for compensation for non-material damage suffered.

This study describes how penal protection orders contribute to victim perceptions of safety, drawing upon data collected via a victim survey (n=101). Perceived victim safety is explored based on the factors of personal vulnerability, procedural justice, and experiences with compliance and enforcement. Results show that more than half of the victims in this study does not feel safer because of the protection order. The effects of the orders are even weaker for feelings of relaxation and feelings of anger about the situation. An increase in perceptions of control over the situation appears to be the most important predictor of an increase in feelings of safety and a decrease in feelings of anger, but is unrelated to an increase in feelings of relaxation. The effect of procedural justice differs per outcome measure. It is associated positively with increased feelings of safety, but negatively with decreased feelings of anger because of the protection order. The positive association with feelings of safety is partly indirect via personal vulnerability. Findings result in various suggestions for future research.

Using frame analyses, the authors explore how people confirm, question or deny victimization, or refrain from interpretation. A frame consists of a problem definition (acts), the diagnosis of causes (identifying actors), and moral judgments. Results confirm that the interaction between factors defines the interpretation of victimization. Similar acts (for instance the consumption of alcohol) are ascribed different meanings depending on the type of frame. The positioning of actors in a frame determines who or what is perceived responsible for the (moral) judgment.

For co-victims of severe traffic offenses in the Netherlands, peer support is offered. However, no research into the meaning of peer support for this specific group of victims has been conducted. In this study, nineteen narrative interviews with co-victims of traffic offenses were collected. These interviews show that through dialogue and the sharing of experiences, as well as the care and support for each other, peer support offers the possibility to work on the meaning-making of the traffic offense and its aftermath. The article ends with policy implications and steps for follow-up research.

In the current criminological literature surprisingly little is known about the development of partnerships of detainees during and after detention. In particular, it is unknown to what extent existing differences in the relationship quality at the start of the detention period continue. Therefore, this study examined how the partnerships of detainees developed by using data from the Prison Project. This is a longitudinal study in which 747 detainees with a partner were interviewed at various moments during detention and six months after detention. The results show that bad partnerships at the beginning of detention remain in general bad or end during and/or after detention, while the average to good relationships remain the same.

The editorial introduction to this special issue on street-level bureaucracy (36 years after the publication of Michael Lipsky’s book) draws attention to the important role of frontline workers in the implementation of policy in practice. The two narratives as distinguished by Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2000) – that of government as an institution and that of the frontline workers themselves – are discussed in the light of the use of discretionary power by the frontline workers. The various dilemmas that the frontline worker encounters while doing so are briefly introduced and the role of the emergence of New Public Management and the resulting public-private partnerships since the eighties discussed.

Studies indicated that detainees are not always allocated to treatment programs based on official guidelines. Street-level bureaucracy theory suggests that this is because government employees do not always perform policies as prescribed. This study aimed to assess whether this also applies to the allocation of offenders to treatment in Dutch penitentiary institutions. This was studied among a group of 541 male prisoners who participated in the Recidivism Reduction program. The results showed that official policy guidelines were, in most cases, not leading when referring detainees to behavioral interventions. Instead, treatment referrals were influenced by a broad range of risk factors, as well as the length of an offender’s sentence.

The image that criminal enforcement of organized crime is difficult, is commonly reflected in the media and popular debate. Commentators often argue that organized crime is punished less severely than possible, due to the complexity of the offences, time constraints, and the increased interconnectedness between legal and illegal activities, which creates difficulties to find sufficient evidence to convict offenders. Using data from the Dutch Organized Crime Monitor, this article focuses on the ways in which offenders of organized crime are ‘treated’ by the criminal justice system and on the discrepancies between demanded sanctions and the actual sanctions executed in cases of organized crime.

Since 2007 the police and the public prosecution service in the Netherlands can apply special investigative powers in case of ‘indications’ of a terrorist offense. To investigate signs of terrorism, a suspicion is no longer needed. The underlying assumption behind this extension is that the ‘old’ legislation offers insufficient opportunities to investigate signs of terrorism in an early phase. In this article we examine this assumption about the action space of investigating officers. For the period 2007-2011, we examined how investigating officers responded to signs of terrorism in practice, what investigative powers they used, and how they – as street level bureaucrats – handled their discretionary authority. The research shows that police and judiciary officials are very well able to investigate signs of terrorism with the already existing powers, and that they have made little use of the new ‘indications’ criterion

The current study examined the extent to which risk factors and treatment readiness were related to prison based treatment engagement (i.e. participation and completion), using a large sample of detainees who were a candidate for the Prevention of Recidivism program. Analyses showed that offenders who were treatment ready were over two times more likely to complete treatment programs, compared to offenders who were not. Risk factors did, for the most part, not correlate with treatment participation and completion. Outcomes underlined the importance of motivational aspects and showed the significance of enhancing treatment readiness amongst correctional resocialisation participants.

Sentencing research focusing solely on unsuspended imprisonment does no justice to the practice of sentencing, where many other punishment types are imposed – often conjunctly. To investigate to what extent this imprisonment bias might have caused incomplete and thereby biased findings, we compare the effects of offender characteristics for imprisonment to those for other sanction types, as well as to a model combining sanction types. Findings suggest that the effects of offender characteristics differ per sanction type. When combinations of sanction types are taken into account, some offender characteristics do no longer have mitigating or aggravating effects, or the effects even inverted. Hence, future sentencing research should aim to include all sentences imposed.