Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 41 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x
Artikel

Access_open Het effect van een pro Justitia-rapportage op de bewijsbeslissing: een empirische verkenning

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Pro Justitia, Guilt, Conviction, Forensic mental health report
Auteurs Roosmarijn van Es MSc., Dr. Janne van Doorn, Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.


Roosmarijn van Es MSc.
Roosmarijn van Es is promovenda bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de rol van informatie in pro Justitia-rapportages in rechterlijke beslissingen over bewijs en straf.

Dr. Janne van Doorn
Janne van Doorn is universitair docent bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. Jan de Keijser
Jan de Keijser is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.

Prof. dr. mr. Maarten Kunst
Maarten Kunst is hoogleraar Criminologie bij het Instituut voor Strafrecht en Criminologie aan Universiteit Leiden.
Forum

mE=rR2

Twee vliegen in één klap?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2020
Auteurs dr. Albert Klijn
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this contribution, the authors enter into a debate on the innovation The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary made quite recently, promoting social effective justice (maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak;to English readers more familiar under the label of ‘Problem solving courts’).
    Klijn has quite serious doubts about this strategy. First of all: the judge is not - and never has been - a problem solver, as (a) the judge lacks the competences to do so and (b) the structure of legal procedure falls fundamentally short of this task. Secondly, in our contemporary society other professionals are in charge of intervening in social conflicts, and they are much better positioned to do so, at the appropriate moment in time. Thirdly, in making this choice the Council misunderstands its role as the Third State Power, vis-a-vis the much greater influence of changing societal conditions stimulating societal changes.


dr. Albert Klijn
Albert Klijn is rechtssocioloog en voormalig wetenschappelijk adviseur van de Raad voor de rechtspraak (2002-2011).
Artikel

Upperdogs Versus Underdogs

Judicial Review of Administrative Drug-Related Closures in the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden Eviction, War on drugs, Party capability, Empirical legal research, Drug policy
Auteurs Mr. Michelle Bruijn en Dr. Michel Vols
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, mayors are entitled to close public and non-public premises if drug-related activities are being conducted there. Using data from the case law of Dutch lower courts, published between 2008 and 2016, this article examines the relative success of different types of litigants, and the influence of case characteristics on drug-related closure cases. We build on Galanter’s framework of ‘repeat players’ and ‘one-shotters’, to argue that a mayor is the stronger party and is therefore more likely to win in court. We categorise mayors as ‘upperdogs’, and the opposing litigants as ‘underdogs’. Moreover, we distinguish stronger mayors from weaker ones, based on the population size of their municipality. Similarly, we distinguish the stronger underdogs from the weaker ones. Businesses and organisations are classified as stronger parties, relative to individuals, who are classified as weaker parties. In line with our hypothesis, we find that mayors win in the vast majority of cases. However, contrary to our presumptions, we find that mayors have a significantly lower chance of winning a case if they litigate against weak underdogs. When controlling for particular case characteristics, such as the type of drugs and invoked defences, our findings offer evidence that case characteristics are consequential for the resolution of drug-related closure cases in the Netherlands.


Mr. Michelle Bruijn
Michelle Bruijn is promovendus en docent aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Haar onderzoek richt zich op de regulering van cannabis en de sluiting van drugspanden.

Dr. Michel Vols
Michel Vols is hoogleraar Openbare-Orderecht aan Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Zijn onderzoek richt zich op Openbare orde en veiligheid, en het gebruik van data science (machine learning) bij het bestuderen van juridische data.
Recensies en signalementen

Schikkende rechters onder de loep

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2019
Auteurs Dr. Roland Eshuis
Auteursinformatie

Dr. Roland Eshuis
Roland Eshuis is scientific researcher bij het WODC.
Artikel

Het werk van Wibo van Rossum – een bloemlezing

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden Wibo van Rossum, Legal anthropology, Administration of Justice, Empirical research, The Netherlands
Auteurs Dr. mr. Marc Simon Thomas en Prof. mr. Rick Verschoof
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article is about the work of Wibo van Rossum who passed away in April 2018. Trained as a legal anthropologist he has conducted empirical research on the administration of justice in the Netherlands for many years. This anthology is about four research reports he produced and many articles he has written in two decades. This article provides an academic as well as a practical review of his work.


Dr. mr. Marc Simon Thomas
Marc Simon Thomas is universitair docent aan de Universiteit Utrecht.

Prof. mr. Rick Verschoof
Rick Verschoof is senior rechter en bijzonder hoogleraar rechtspraak aan de Universiteit Utrecht.
Artikel

Empiricism as an ethical enterprise. On the work of Erhard Blankenburg

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Empiricism, Erhard Blankenburg, mobilization of law, legal instruments, problems and disputes
Auteurs Prof. dr. Pieter Ippel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article gives an interpretation of the empirical work of the well-known sociologist of law Erhard Blankenburg, who passed away in the Spring of 2018. He conducted interesting and intelligent research on the process of ‘mobilization of law’. The thesis of this article is that Blankenburg’s empirical approach is actually guided and stimulated by normative considerations. A complete and coherent picture of the concrete utilization of legal instruments shows that ‘alternative’ ways of dealing with problems and disputes are often morally preferable as they are inspired by a realistic assessment of persons-in-a-social-context.


Prof. dr. Pieter Ippel
Pieter Ippel is professor of law at University College Roosevelt (Middelburg) and Utrecht University. He studied philosophy, criminology and Dutch Law. From 1981-1987 he worked as an assistant with Erhard Blankenburg and finished his PhD in 1989. From 1989-1995 he worked as a civil servant in The Hague and from 1995-2005 he was professor of jurisprudence in Utrecht.
Recensies en signalementen

Signaleringen

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2018

Annelien Bouland
Annelien Bouland (LLM, MSc) is een Meijers PhD kandidaat aan het Van Vollenhoven Institute for Law Governance and Society, Universiteit Leiden.
Praktijk

Wat gebeurt er op de gang? Een kwalitatief empirisch onderzoek naar schikkingsonderhandelingen tijdens civielrechtelijke procedures

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Settlement negotiations, Distributive negotiations, Qualitative empirical research, Biases, Heuristics
Auteurs Mr. Lucas Lieverse
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    There is little known on settlement negotiations during civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. Settlement negotiations take place during a (suspension of the) public court hearing. The public hearing takes place in the majority of the civil lawsuits in the Netherlands. The qualitative empirical research I am carrying out, intents to give insight in these settlement negotiations and questions what lawyers actually do during these negotiations. The research intents to contribute to the effectiveness of settlement negotiations in the sense that (i) the number of settlements increases and of compulsory settlements decreases, (ii) the perceived fairness of procedure and outcome in settled cases increases, and (iii) the number of resolved underlying conflicts increases.
    I expect to find that most settlement negotiations can be qualified as distributive negotiations (as opposed to integrative negotiations). Furthermore, based on a literature review on biases and heuristics I hypothesized that settlement could be more effective than they actually are. The paper touches on the methodology and on both hypotheses.


Mr. Lucas Lieverse
Lucas Lieverse is docent en onderzoeker bij Zuyd Hogeschool en voor zijn PhD-onderzoek als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Hij heeft als gewezen advocaat ervaring met en is geïnteresseerd in civiel (proces)recht en (juridische) conflictoplossing, waarbij hij inzichten uit verschillende disciplines verbindt.

Prof. mr. Lieke Coenraad
Lieke Coenraad is hoogleraar Privaatrecht, in het bijzonder Conflictoplossing aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Het besluitvormingsproces van civiele rechters in procedures over de gevolgen van een (echt)scheiding met een beschuldiging van seksueel kindermisbruik

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Family law, Child sexual abuse, Divorce, Custody and access
Auteurs Anne Smit MSc., Prof. dr. mr. Catrien Bijleveld en Prof. dr. mr. Masha Antokolskaia
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This study aims to provide insight into allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of divorce, and related, proceedings by analyzing the decision-making process of civil judges. To this aim, interviews with 13 judges and 11 lawyers were conducted and a focus group was organized with different specialists. It is concluded that in the eyes of the judges, allegations of child sexual abuse in this context are not rare, and some of the professionals signal an increase of allegations in the last decade. The presence of an allegation poses a dual issue: it points out problems within the family, as well as causes problems for the child. This dual nature makes it even more complex for judges to make decisions, especially concerning contact between father and child. The validity of the allegation becomes less important than its presence when judges consider the children’s best interests. The judges’ aim to create conditions for the family within which the child’s safety is best protected, can as an unwanted consequence delay the process, which in itself can be damaging for the child.


Anne Smit MSc.
Anne Smit is promovenda bij het NSCR waar zij werkt aan haar proefschrift ‘Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Children in Divorce Procedures: Towards Evidence-Based Guidelines’.

Prof. dr. mr. Catrien Bijleveld
Catrien Bijleveld is directeur van het Nederlands Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving.

Prof. dr. mr. Masha Antokolskaia
Masha Antokolskaia is hoogleraar privaatrecht, in het bijzonder personen- en familierecht aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam.
Redactioneel

Recht als probleemoplossing?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Auteurs Hilke Grootelaar, Prof. Peter Mascini en Dr. Wibo van Rossum
Auteursinformatie

Hilke Grootelaar
Hilke Grootelaar is postdoc onderzoeker bij het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht. Daarnaast is ze redactiesecretaris van dit tijdschrift en maakt ze deel uit van de gastredactie van dit themanummer van Recht der Werkelijkheid.

Prof. Peter Mascini
Peter Mascini is hoogleraar Empirical Legal Studies aan de Erasmus School of Law, de universiteit waaraan hij ook verbonden is als universitair hoofddocent Sociologie bij de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen. Zijn onderzoek richt zich op legitimering, uitvoering en handhaving van wetgeving en beleid. Daarnaast is hij redactielid van Recht der Werkelijkheid en maakt hij deel uit van de gastredactie van dit themanummer van Recht der Werkelijkheid.

Dr. Wibo van Rossum
Wibo van Rossum is Universitair Hoofddocent aan het departement Sociology, Theory & Methodology van de Erasmus School of Law. Hij maakt deel uit van de gastredactie van dit themanummer van Recht der Werkelijkheid.
Artikel

Voorbij procedurele rechtvaardigheid

De betrekkelijkheid van de beleving van respondenten

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Procedural Justice, Administrative law, Access to Justice, Outcomes of legal proceedings
Auteurs Dr. Nienke Doornbos
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    To overcome problems of juridification and formalization of administrative law, successful initiatives have been undertaken by professionals in the public administration and judiciary to improve administrative procedures. These initiatives have been inspired by theories of (perceived) procedural justice, as developed by Tyler and Lind (1988). Although the author acknowledges the importance of procedural justice, she argues that the strong focus on procedural aspects, based on subjective opinions of claimants, may unintentionally lead to a situation in which other important issues may be easily overlooked, such as the question why citizens would refrain from starting a lawsuit or the question what explains the low success rates of citizens in administrative law.


Dr. Nienke Doornbos
Nienke Doornbos is universitair docent bij de Afdeling Algemene rechtsleer van de Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Artikel

De civiele rechter als problem solver

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden legal profession, conflict resolution, procedural justice
Auteurs Dr. Wibo van Rossum en Prof. Rick Verschoof
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    We investigate a recent development in the practice of the civil courts: judges increasingly devote attention to the underlying conflict of parties instead of only to their legal dispute. In administrative law, this development has already been codified and termed ‘de Nieuwe zaaksbehandeling’, but not so in other areas of law.
    Lawyers know that social conflicts are transformed into legally viable disputes so that the court can decide on them. For a long time, the most important task for lawyers was to resolve those legal disputes. Nowadays, that does not seem to be enough: judges should become problem solvers. Civil judges seem to blend in with these new requirements, but the question is whether the new approach really works. Based on our empirical material of 100 observed cases in civil law, we answer the following questions. 1. What do judges actually do in civil cases when they address underlying conflicts and try to steer parties toward a settlement? 2. What effects do these interventions of judges have on the outcome of cases? 3. How are these interventions perceived by the parties in terms of procedural justice?


Dr. Wibo van Rossum
Wibo van Rossum is Universitair Hoofddocent aan het departement Sociology, Theory & Methodology van de Erasmus School of Law te Rotterdam.

Prof. Rick Verschoof
Rick Verschoof is senior-rechter bij de Rechtbank Midden-Nederland en bijzonder hoogleraar rechtspraak aan de Universiteit Utrecht.
Praktijk

De bezwaarprocedure: Onderzoek naar verbanden tussen de inrichting van de procedure en de inhoudelijke kwaliteit van bezwaarbehandeling

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Dispute resolution procedures, Quality, Administrative law, Objection procedure, Professional users
Auteurs Marc Wever LLM
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    If someone disagrees with an administrative order, he or she has to lodge an objection with the administrative authority responsible for the order. Only after the administrative authority has fully reconsidered the contested order is the interested party allowed to seek redress with the administrative courts. Estimates are that around 2.6 million objections are filled each year, making the administrative objection procedure the most frequently used dispute resolution procedure in the Netherlands. Numerous variations can be found in the way administrative authorities handle objections. Does this affect how professional users evaluate its quality? And if so, how can this be explained?


Marc Wever LLM
Marc Wever is promovendus & docent aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en doet een promotieonderzoek naar de kwaliteit van bezwaarbehandeling door bestuursorganen.

Dr. Marc Simon Thomas
Marc Simon Thomas is Assistant Professor of Sociology of Law and connected to the Montaigne Centre for Judicial Administration and Conflict Resolution at the Utrecht University. He is trained in legal anthropology and has worked on legal pluralism and dispute settlement in Latin America. His present empirical socio-legal research focuses on ADR in the Netherlands.
Artikel

Framing labor contracts: Contract versus network theories

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden contract theory, Network theory, Labor regulation, subjectivity, performativity
Auteurs Robert Knegt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since the 18th century the ‘contractual model’ has become both a paradigm of social theories (f.i. ‘rational choice’) and a dominant model of structuring labour relations. Its presupposition of the subjectivity of individual actors as a given is criticized with reference to network-based theories (Latour, Callon) and to analyses of Foucault. The current contract model of labour relations is analyzed from a historical perspective on normative regimes of labour relations, that imply different conceptions of ‘subjectivity’. Research into the regulation of labour relations requires an analysis in terms of an entanglement of human beings, technologies and legal discourse.


Robert Knegt
Senior researcher at Hugo Sinzheimer Institute, University of Amsterdam
Artikel

Autonomy of law in Indonesia

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden Rule of law, Indonesia, Socio-legal studies, Legal scholarhip, Judiciary
Auteurs Professor Adriaan Bedner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article seeks to answer how useful the theoretical approaches developed in Europe and the United States are for explaining or understanding the autonomy of law in Indonesia – a nation that is on the verge of becoming a lower-middle-income country and whose legal system presents many of the features found in other developing countries’ legal systems. The article first sketches three lines of theoretical thought that have dominated the inquiry into autonomy of law in (Western) sociology and then assesses to what extent they are represented in the socio-legal studies of Indonesian law. The conclusion is that although socio-legal scholars studying developing countries need supplementary concepts and theories, they can use the Western ones as their point of departure in understanding the functioning of law in a setting that is very different from the one in which these theories were developed.


Professor Adriaan Bedner
Adriaan Bedner is professor of law and society in Indonesia at the Van Vollenhoven Institute (Leiden Law School). He has worked on many different subjects within this field, including family law, administrative courts, and environmental law. His present focus is on the Indonesian Ombudsman and on legal education.
Discussie

KEI en ODR: hand in hand vooruit

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, online courts, access to justice, ADR
Auteurs Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Is online dispute resolution (ODR) the way to organise 100% access to justice? Or is it more of a bubble-solution looking for a problem? Experiences are mixed but there are reasons to be optimistic. A Dutch example of an online divorce platform show how technology can better serve the justice needs of citizens. But for that we need to stop thinking in terms of ADR, ODR and court litigation but rather design more hybrid processes.


Mr. dr. Jin Ho Verdonschot
Jin Ho Verdonschot is directeur HiiL Rechtwijzer Technology en een van de grondleggers van het Rechtwijzer platform.
Discussie

KEI voorbij met ODR

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden ODR, Courts, court users, dispute resolution, digital court
Auteurs Dory Reiling
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    ‘I felt so sorry for you, such a lovely tool, and then you have no users!’ This was one of the comments after my presentation of the eKantonrechter at ODR 2016, organized by HiiL in The Hague in May 2016. ODR, online dispute resolution, was presented as a tool to solve all problems in the 4th Trend Report by HIIL after the conference. Arno Lodder, in a weblog, commented that ODR had raised hopes in its early promoters, but had not really taken off.
    ODR is a tool to help parties in the dispute resolve their problem. There are various examples of ODR tool: supporting double blind bidding to determine a sum of money, working out divorce settlements, negotiating a solution and taking a case to court.
    Interesting research questions abound in the area of ODR and its users: What paths do people take when trying to resolve a problem? How can people have ownership of their court procedure? How can solutions, ODR and court procedures, best be tailored to the type of problem?
    ODR and its users is a field in which law and society researchers can effectively contribute to improving digital problem solving and dispute resolution procedures in court.


Dory Reiling
Dory Reiling is senior rechter in Amsterdam, en product owner van KEI Civiel. Ze promoveerde op “Technology for Justice, how IT can support judicial reform”. Ze blogt over IT en rechtspraak op mr-online en haar Technology for Justice-blog. Ze twittert op @doryontour, haar publicaties staan op www.doryreiling.com.
Toont 1 - 20 van 41 gevonden teksten
« 1 3
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.