Zoekresultaat: 2 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen x Jaar 2019 x
Artikel

Circles of Support and Accountability

Een sociaal netwerk voor zedendelinquenten

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 3 2019
Trefwoorden COSA, sex offenders, re-entry, desistance, recidivism
Auteurs Dr. Mechtild Höing en Audrey Alards LLM
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) a group of trained and supervised volunteers support a medium to high-risk sex offender in his process of re-entry after detention. Sex offenders participate on a voluntary basis. Circles have a double aim: the prevention of new sexual offences and the rehabilitation of the sex offender. Circles offer social inclusion and support for behavior change, and monitor risk. They are embedded in the professional network of sex offender after care. Through a professional circle coordinator relevant information is circulated between the circle and professional agencies, to enable adequate support and interventions. Effect studies show that COSA contributes to a reduced risk of reoffending. The model was developed in Canada almost 25 years ago and has been picked up by a growing number of countries in Europe, the America’s, Asia, as well as Australia and New Zealand. Variations in the model become apparent and raise questions about the essentials of COSA.


Dr. Mechtild Höing
Dr. M. Höing is docent en onderzoeker bij het lectoraat Transmuraal Herstelgericht Werken van Avans Hogeschool in Breda. Zij is daar als operationeel projectleider verbonden aan het project Sterktegericht werken met COSA buiten justitieel kader.

Audrey Alards LLM
A. Alards LLM is extern kenniskringlid bij het lectoraat Transmuraal Herstelgericht Werken van Avans Hogeschool in Breda. Ze is verbonden aan het lectoraat als senior cirkelcoördinator en onderzoeker.
Artikel

Vrijwillige rechtspraak: rechters op het mediationpad?

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden neighbourhood courts, mediation, friendly solutions, voluntary jurisdiction, de-escalation
Auteurs Prof. dr. Dick Allewijn
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    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.


Prof. dr. Dick Allewijn
Prof. dr. D. Allewijn is als bijzonder hoogleraar Mediation verbonden aan de Faculteit Rechten van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Hij is tevens werkzaam als MfN-registermediator en trainer bij het Centrum voor Conflicthantering.
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.