This article outlines the need in the Netherlands for socially effective justice that better resolves citizens’ problems. The author argues that new forms of dispute resolution should be integrated in the justice system. The author first describes various types of innovations. Then he outlines the obstacles to innovations. A major obstacle is that many stakeholders in the existing legal system are simultaneously the gatekeepers for the admission of innovations. It is necessary to create an infrastructure that welcomes, reinforces, tests, finances and imports new treatments for legal problems.

This article is about the history of the justice of the peace, a low profile judge where people easily have access to. The history of the justice of the peace goes back to the seventeenth century. The justice of the peace was reintroduced in the Netherlands in the French period, when the country was annexed by the French Empire under the reign of Napoleon. The justice of the peace was also introduced in Belgium and is still in use. The most important task of the justice of the peace is ‘conciliation’. In the conciliation procedure the justice of the peace has a very active role. The judge tries to mediate between the parties in order to come to an agreement.

In Dutch courts several pilots are being carried out in order to enhance the quality of civil procedure. The main focus of the pilots is to speed up the procedure and make it more cost-effective, while ensuring the procedure is easily accessible and is overseen by a mediating judge in a nearby court. This focus largely corresponds with aspects of the civil procedure that the courts and the minister of Justice have identified as in need of attention. The courts and the minister have focused on different specific problems and propose different solutions, however, and neither aims to address the quality of civil procedure as a whole. It is doubtful whether the proposals for improvement, put forward by the courts and the minister, can address the concerns they have intended to resolve and whether the overall quality of the civil procedure (for all civil cases instead of the simple ones) will be improved. Solutions to the problems of the civil procedure cannot be devised without first developing a clear picture of the problems people experience with civil procedures and the courts.

Socially effective justice requires innovative legislation that allows the judge to experiment with simple procedures that bring parties together in order to prevent escalation of disputes. For that reason, the Dutch government has enabled experiments with low-threshold local civil courts. This article focuses on the experiences with such a court in Rotterdam. The court provides a simple, fast and cheap procedure with the aim of reaching a solution to the dispute in joint consultation. The article provides insight into the nature and the number of disputes that have been dealt with up to now.

This article relates the geographical allocation of Courts to access to justice. Travel distances within the Dutch system are higher than in surrounding countries, but still not extremely high. The scale of the Dutch Court organizations however, is extreme. On average, a Court location that handles small claims has jurisdiction over a territory with over half a million inhabitants. This large number of inhabitants automatically translates to large numbers of cases, and large bureaucracies, employing 500 to 1,000 people (judges, court staff, support) each. Do travel distances to the Courts actually have an impact on the use of the Court system? Two recent studies find no support for a popular belief that defendants will be less determined to defend themselves when the travel distance to the court is longer. They do show however that the number of cases brought to Court by local plaintiffs drops when ‘their’ local court closes down.

A characteristic difference between administration of justice and mediation so far was the element of voluntariness on the side of the clients. Administration of justice however is, for the citizen who is brought before the courts, not voluntary. Recently pilots have been started in which citizens can turn voluntarily to the Court at low cost, and not far from their neighborhood. Judges will not primarily aim at making a decision in accordance with the law, but at finding friendly solutions. Does this mean that judges are going to mediate? And if so, how should this be appreciated? In this contribution attention is paid to certain aspects of this question. It is argued that differences between jurisdiction and mediation still remain. More than mediators judges must act within the legal framework. The extent to which they can engage in the emotional undercurrent of conflicts is limited. Confidence in the Court is from a different origin than trust in the mediator, and that also makes a difference. And finally, a judge is competent to make a binding judgment, which influences the way he or she is looked at by the parties.

The tremendously popular television programme De Rijdende Rechter (The Itinerant Judge) has an uncomfortable relationship with official legal practice. Many people indeed think that the itinerant judge who arrives in their street to personally check neighbourly grievances has come as a representative of the Law with a capital L. It is not clear where reality TV stops and current legal practice begins. Things have become more complicated because the itinerant judge has become a symbol of the ‘close-to-the-people’ judge that is embraced by legal practice today. In this article the murky boundary between TV judges and official judiciary is investigated, taking into account the cult status of the itinerant judge, the effect of imagination on reality, similar phenomena in the United States and the current situation in the Netherlands.

This study investigates the strategies people themselves use to deal with situations in which they fear crime. The authors see people as social agents who hold agency and (also) manage their own safety, instead of viewing people as powerless victims. Previous studies have emphasized people’s agency, often through a focus on avoiding dangerous spaces. Building on insights from the fear of crime literature that approaches fear of crime as situational, the authors illustrate how spaces in which people worry about crime can also be transformed (through action) into safe(r) spaces. The article focuses on the context of urban nightlife areas. Thirty students living in Utrecht, the Netherlands were interviewed. Results show that students perform a range of strategies to cope with their fear, including situational avoidance, arranging companionship, increasing alertness, and reasoning. In the discussion the authors reflect on how the application of such strategies is related to (erosion of) ‘mobility’ and individual freedom of movement.

The aim of this article is to search for a more focused approach of fighting back against ‘the fear of crime’. It is based on a study of the backgrounds of risen levels of fear of crime in twelve neighborhoods in the regions of Utrecht and Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Eight central themes could be identified in the stories of 240 respondents: specific locations, avoidance behavior, social stability, social quality, superdiversity, negative neighborhood images, burglary, and societal pessimism. Despite the fact that these central themes appeared in the overall analysis, every neighborhood showed another mix of factors explaining risen levels of fear of crime. This means that policies to reduce ‘the fear of crime’ should focus on specific, local explanations and should always be tailor-made.

Living in a multicultural environment may be accompanied with an increased fear of crime. Residents may become alienated in a very diverse environment and withdraw themselves in their own social world. This ‘hunkering down’ may ensue feelings of unsafety. However, social scientists have done hardly any research on whether citizens who live in a multicultural environment in Western Europe actually feel more unsafe. This study seeks to contribute to fill in this knowledge gap. The authors’ research reveals that residents are more likely to feel unsafe in neighborhoods with a high degree of ethnic diversity. The aforementioned correlation is the most noticeable in neighborhoods consisting of people on medium incomes.

There is no such thing as the feeling of unsafety. The trend in feelings of unsafety is measured using a standard question that has figured in the successive Safety Monitors (Veiligheidsmonitors) for many years: ‘Do you occasionally feel unsafe?’ This general question formulation elicits information on how uneasy the Dutch feel about safety. The nature and burden of this unease may vary greatly among them. The authors’ analysis shows that crime-specific measures of fear of victimization differ fundamentally from both cognitive assessments (risk perception) and general measures of feelings of unsafety. Hence, people who occasionally feel unsafe do not automatically think or fear that they will fall victim to crime and vice versa. Consequently, the authors identify four main constellations of subjective safety which emerge in different population groups, some more burdened by fear of victimization than others. The authors argue that policy should at least seek to reduce the most serious problems. They propose personal fear of victimization as an alternative for general feelings of safety.

The security landscape has changed rapidly. New or revived threats have emerged, such as terrorism and cybercrime, bringing new or revived fears and anxieties as well. Actors in security policy feel a need to address these fears, but do not know how. Can the criminological subdiscipline of fear of crime studies provide the knowledge and understanding that is needed? A quick scan of the state of the art in this research domain, gives two reasons why it cannot: (1) fear of crime studies have yielded much knowledge on operationalization, measurement and determinants of fear of crime, but far less in mechanisms, trends, effects and influenceability, whereas insight in the latter issues is what is mostly needed in security policy; and (2) fear of crime studies are still mainly focused on the ‘traditional’ fear of crime, while fear of new crimes and threats remains under-researched. A shift of focus in fear of crime studies is urgently needed.

In this article we analyze how organized crime offenders use IT to handle their money flows. How and to what extent do offenders use IT-facilitated possibilities, such as bitcoin, to launder their money? The empirical data consist of thirty large-scale police investigations. These thirty cases are part of the Organized Crime Monitor, an ongoing research project into the nature of organized crime in the Netherlands. One of the most striking findings is the fact that cash is still king – even for online drug dealers who get paid in digital currencies.

The emergence of Dark Web child pornography forums and their availability to large offender communities has enabled a professional form of child pornography distribution as well as an increased exchange of criminal and social capital. Offenders have access to a new platform in which strong ties and long-lasting relationships with co-offenders are formed. Moreover they could be classified as organized crime, because child pornography Dark Web forums are characterized by a hierarchical order, a clear role division and illegal power structures that regulate the illegal activities. The implications from a law enforcement as well as from scientific perspective are discussed.

Botnets, banking malware and other high-tech crimes are increasingly analyzed by criminological scholars. Their distributed and automated nature poses however various theoretical challenges. This article presents an alternative approach, denoted as the ‘cyborg crime’ perspective, which adopts a more hybrid view of networks and also assigns an active role to technology. The value of this approach is demonstrated by reflecting on findings from earlier empirical work that analyzes conversations between cybercriminals involved in botnets and related activities. The research shows that technological nodes can take an important position in the organizational structure of cybercriminal networks and do not merely have a functional role. Viewing technology as an actor within a criminal network might offer new criminological insights in both the composition of these networks and how to disrupt them.

This article investigates which online undercover investigative methods are applied in practice and how they fit in the Dutch legal framework. In particular, the three special investigative powers of a pseudo purchase, systematic information gathering and infiltration are examined. Investigative powers cannot be applied unilaterally (across state borders). When law enforcement officials cannot reasonably determine the location of the suspect, the online unilateral application of undercover investigative powers is allowed. However, there is still a risk that diplomatic tensions arise with the involved state. States should agree in treaties under which circumstances cross-border online undercover operations are allowed.