Zoekresultaat: 3 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen x Jaar 2011 x

    Comparing an organized crime group to an ‘enterprise’ or ‘firm’ and its key persons to ‘entrepreneurs’ is only a small step to viewing its illegal activities as a business process. Yet, it took until the early 1990s before criminologists started to study the logistics of specific illegal activities. Since then, the Dutch police have adapted to thinking of organized crime in terms of criminal business processes and to erecting barriers (preferably insurmountable ones) to specific steps in these processes. Firstly, the police analyze logistical processes to find weak spots that can be targeted to hinder illegal activities most effectively, either through investigative action or by means of preventive measures. Secondly, law enforcement agencies consider such an analytical approach an attractive tool to explore the viability of involving other public or private parties in setting up barriers. The Dutch investigation authorities have used this concept successfully in the case of ecstasy production, by aiming at the small number of suppliers of particular chemicals and hardware. As regards large-scale (and indoor) cannabis cultivation, however, the approach is less fruitful, because there are no explicitly ‘vulnerable’ stages in the cultivation process. Furthermore, some of the intended barriers can be deemed rather intrusive, such as a plan to persuade banks to withdraw a mortgage if the police discover a cannabis nursery in a person's private home. This raises the question to what extent the police and the judiciary may call in other parties to help them put up barriers to illegal activities, instead of using the conventional tool of criminal investigation.


A.C.M. Spapens
Dr. Toine Spapens is als senior onderzoeker verbonden aan de Faculteit Rechtswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Tilburg. Hij is tevens lector milieucriminaliteit aan de Politieacademie te Apeldoorn.

    The main question of this article is why the existing diverse populist movements have at least one feature in common: Crime, security and harsher punishments are high on their political agenda. The author points out that the rise of criminality in the last 20 years is a real basis for the growing anxiety among the population about insecurity. This anxiety is reinforced by the blown up media attention for crime issues. The dominance of the security issue is further explained and enhanced by cultural factors like individualisation, migration and the rise of a vitalist culture characterised by a geografical and normative boundlessness. In this context norm violations are always lurking and contributing to an insecure, complex and chaotic society. (In)security has become the common denominator to which all grievances can be reduced. The creation of new structures giving reassurance could provide a democratic alternative for the unevitable authoritarian tendency in state policy caused by the rise of populism. This type of social order should be understood in terms of arrangements of institutions and of tuning stakeholders to one another. Taking this longing for security among the population seriously means also to stop addressing civilians as consumers and start urging them to act like co-responsibles.


J.C.J. Boutellier
Prof. dr. Hans Boutellier is algemeen directeur van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut en bijzonder hoogleraar Veiligheid & burgerschap aan de Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.

    This article focuses on a phenomenon often called ‘function creep’. This is the process whereby new functions are added to systems that are basically intended for other purposes, or when systems or data originally intended for function A are linked to other systems or data having function B. New technical possibilities have definitely paved the way for function creep and a growing number of ICT-applications appear no longer limited to the purpose for which they were originally set up. Function creep is an inherent feature of innovation. But at the same time it poses risks if considered from a privacy perspective. After detailing many examples of function creep, the article elaborates on a potential risk not often discussed: loss of data quality. The analysis concludes in arguing that citizens can act as a crucial countervailing power to limit the expansion of function creep. This however requires that governments are more open and accountable to allow for a transparent and verifiable comparison between the interests at stake.


J.E.J. Prins
Prof.mr. Corien Prins is hoogleraar aan het Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Universiteit van Tilburg en Raadslid bij de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR). Deze bijdrage is voor een belangrijk deel ontleend aan het rapport iOverheid van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (maart 2011, zie: www.wrr.nl), dat onder haar verantwoordelijkheid werd opgesteld.
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.