In recent decades the night-time economy has started to play a significant role in city centre regeneration; it has become a vital element of the urban economy, as well as a marketing tool in the competition between cities. Concerns about personal safety and fear of crime determine to a large extent the success of these nightlife districts. Based on an analysis of policy documents, night-time observations and expert interviews with stakeholders in the Safe Nightlife Programmes of Rotterdam and Utrecht, different local safety measures and their legitimizations in different local urban settings will be analysed. The question raised is how surveillance measures in different nightlife districts are legitimized, taking into account the fact that cities' nightlife districts do not only need to be safe, but are also favoured by its visitors for adventure and excitement. What are the social implications of these surveillance measures and what does this mean for the character of cities' nightlife districts?

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.

There is a strange contradiction in the history of Dutch criminal justice. On the one hand, until well into the 20^th Century, it was peculiarly backward in terms of criminal procedure that remained based on principles deriving essentially from the era of the first Dutch republic (17^th and 18^th Century) or even earlier. On the other, The Netherlands was one of the first countries in Europe to lastingly abolish capital punishment without the intermediate phase of continuing executions out of public view. In this, Dutch criminal justice was decidedly ahead of its times. This contribution examines this apparent contradiction that cannot be entirely explained by existing theories on (the abolition of) capital punishment. It must also be seen in the light of the historical role of publicity/transparency for the legitimacy of criminal justice in the Netherlands, its link to a legal culture of public confidence in the criminal justice authorities and the relatively late reception of Enlightenment ideals.

Various criminologists describe family and partner relationships as forms of social capital. Also research shows that many delinquents say they have generally good relations with their family. Instead of focusing only on the delinquent's individual responsibility and risk factors, probation work should pay more attention to the protective aspects of the former convict's social environment. The author presents a framework, based on the work of the family therapist Nagy, that provides probations workers with the tools to involve the delinquent's family members in the process towards desistance.

Intervention teams are among the most discussed tools in the current process of securitisation. Their integrated approach takes into account all underlying causes of insecurity and quality of life. For a more effective approach authorities and organisations have to cooperate and let go of their mutual boundaries. But can the participants put aside their differences in perspectives and policies? This article discusses the goal of ‘ontkokering’ (‘decompartalisation’), this was done through a study of the practices of intervention team SIP in Amsterdam. On basis of thirteen interviews and observations the authors argue that there are three main mechanisms or ‘molar barriers’, which conserve the old structures in the integrated approach of the intervention team: ‘methodical robustness’, ‘institutional robustness’ and ‘financial robustness’.