Since 2014, several countries have introduced legislation to criminalize ‘street harassment.’ In France, this criminalization was framed within a feminist perspective, by conceiving of street harassment as the first level of a ‘continuum of violence against women.’ In the Netherlands, on the other hand, proposals to criminalize these behaviors came from right-wing political parties. They framed ordinances as protecting public order and focused on racialized loitering youth as the main problem group. Despite these differences, proponents of penalization in both countries encountered a similar criticism: according to left-wing politicians, feminists, and anti-racist activists, criminalizing street harassment could lead to disproportionate punishment of racialized men from disadvantaged backgrounds. This article argues for a pragmatic ‘sociology of critique’ within the sociology of law, which provides insight into how actors involved in the introduction of regulation develop reflexivity about the risks of legislation, as well as their blind spots.

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.

A common conception in the legal literature holds that in a given country, the law in force is to be understood against the background of shared beliefs about justice in that particular country. If that conception holds true, the applicable civil law in a particular country should reflect the shared views on ‘civil justice’ within that country and, as a result, citizens should reveal a preference for domestic civil law over the civil law of another country for a given case. In this research we empirically investigated to what extent the applicable law in particular cases corresponds to actual beliefs about what is seen as just in those situations. Does Dutch liability law in a particular case correspond with what citizens in the Netherlands consider to be just in that case? And does the applicable English liability law correspond to what English people consider fair in that case?
In an experiment we compared Dutch and English respondents’ views on the fairness of legal solutions in three different, hypothetical cases where Dutch and English legal solutions to the same case would diverge. We find that at the aggregate level, respondents indeed reveal a preference for the legal solution that is applicable in their own country, regardless of whether the different legal solutions are presented as applicable or not: Dutch respondents prefer Dutch civil solutions and English respondents prefer English civil solutions. However, we also observe differences between cases that make strong conclusions about a structural correspondence premature.

In this article Bart Schermer, describes the difficulties in regulating the internet. The global reach of the internet, the fact that it is for the most part owned by private actors and creates opportunities for anonymity challenge regulators. The article describes issues related to sovereignty and jurisdiction, ambiguity in legal texts and dependence on private sector actors. Possible solutions lie in global internet governance, institutional innovation and the internet’s architecture itself.

In 2000 the Netherlands has lifted the ban on brothels. By legalizing sex work the Dutch government aimed to increase the opportunities to regulate this sector and to improve the social position of sex workers. This article examines to what extent the application of a particular fiscal regulation known as ‘opting-in’ to certain branches of the Dutch prostitution industry is legitimate from a socio legal perspective. It takes into account both the efficacy of the regulation with an eye on achieving the goals which were formulated in 2000 and the experiences of sex workers with this fiscal construction. Aubert’s theory regarding the influence of social factors on the observance of regulations is used to explain the discrepancy between the high degree of acceptance of the regulation amongst sex workers and the limited effectiveness with regard to the improvement of their labour rights.

This article presents the results of a study into the knowledge of doctors regarding three kinds medical treatment regulation at the end of life, the so-called KOPPEL study. One of the findings of this study is that most doctors know the law that regulates ending life at request (euthanasia) and guideline for palliative sedation quite well. However, hardly any of them know Book 7, Section 450.3 of the Dutch Civil Code, the section that regulates written treatment refusals. Apart from the description of the findings, we elaborate on three reasons that Aubert distinguishes for knowledge of the law: the period the regulation exists, the congruence between habits and norms of the law, and experience with the law. We conclude that Aubert’s factors do indeed explain the differences in knowledge of the doctors. In the discussion we come to the conclusion that sociology of law should not only pay attention to ‘what knowledge of the law is’ (Griffiths, Van Tol) and ‘which factors influence this knowledge’ (Aubert) but also to ‘how knowledge of law can be ascertained’. In our opinion the idea of scripts, as introduced by Schank and Abelson, can be of great help in this respect.

Beate Sirota has been described as the ‘heroine of Japanese women’s rights’, because she contributed considerably to the inclusion of a forceful provision on the rights of women in the new Constitution of Japan as a member of the Government Section of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), headed by General Douglas MacArthur. Her role was serendipitous, because at first the Americans were not planning such a thorough revision of the Meiji Constitution (1890). Sirota was not a constitutional scholar, let alone an expert on the rights of women. She was hired only because she had spent her youth in Japan and spoke Japanese fluently. But once she got involved in the drafting of a new Constitution, her intimate knowledge of the position of women in Japanese society proved very useful. She proposed elaborate and detailed provisions on women’s rights in order to counter the expected resistance. This strategy turned out to be successful. Although Sirota was not substantially involved in the implementation of article 24, she returned to the United States in 1947. Since its introduction the provision has been a firm anchor for proponents of the emancipation of women in Japan.

Could one imagine that up until the mid-1940s international treaties had been ratified on postal services, copyright protection, and whale hunting, but not on genocide? It was only after the Second World War that the deliberate and systematic destruction of groups was recognised as an international crime. There had not even been a name for this practice, which has existed since the beginning of humanity. The 1948 Genocide Convention, the first human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations, was a milestone in the international protection of human rights, although several tragedies have shown that mere law is not sufficient to relegate genocide to the scrapheap of history. The initiator of the Convention was not a very well-known man. This article is about the struggle of Raphael Lemkin, who had, with unflagging zeal, devoted his life to the elimination of genocide.

Derkje Hazewinkel-Suringa entered law studies only after marriage and fulfilling about fifteen years of motherhood duty. Once at the university however, she rapidly became a student-researcher, delivered a PhD dissertation on ownership transfer and was appointed as the first female law professor in 1932, at the age of 42. Her professorship was in a remarkably different field, namely criminal law. Twenty years later she published the Introduction to the Study of Criminal Law, which would become the basis for criminal law teaching in the Netherlands for decades. A major reason behind this success was that the book, emphasizing active study of the law rather than passive reproduction, coincided with the general sprit of the post war era. Besides her scholarly work in which balance and synthesis were the major features, Hazewinkel-Suringa was a very outspoken actor in matters political. In 1936, when virtually the whole country was trying to accommodate the rise of fascism in the mighty neighbouring country, she became member of an anti-fascism committee. In 1938 she wrote a plea to the minister of Justice to allow entry of German-Jewish children into the country. During the German occupation (1940-1945) she proposed to close the university because of the dismissal of Jewish professors. She continued her protests against the social mainstream after the war, e.g. writing against the reintroduction of the death penalty (primarily focused on collaborators with the German regime). Hazewinkel-Suringa’s acts of individual courage could not make a difference in the overall political atmosphere of these times.

This article paints Henk Leenen as the godfather of Dutch health law. Godfather because Leenendesigned his own version of health law, a version that is characterized by an emphasis on autonomy of the patient. And godfather because Leenen was one of the founders of the Dutch Association of Health Law and for many years the editor of its periodical. He succeeded to bind almost all health law scholars to this organization and his way of seeing health law. The article illustrates Leenen’s influence by describing his reading of autonomy in health law, by outlining his informal and formal position in the health law landscape and by sketching the coming into being and the content of two important laws: the Law on medical contracts and the Law on physician assisted death (‘euthanasia’).

Two types of legalization can be distinguished. In type 1 legal relations between parties are changed, without consequences for others. In legalization type 2 a change in legal positions does have consequences for third parties. The gradual change in the legal position of patients, managerial measures and the transition to ‘demand driven care’ have changed the relations between patients and doctors, nurses etc. But they had also profound external effects. They have influenced especially other interests than the quality of medical care, like equal treatment of patients and professional discretion. Decision making about the granting of rights should incorporate these external effects.

The use and expenditure of the Legal Aid System is ever increasing. In addition, some people make use of the Legal Aid System more often than others. In fact, a small percentage of clients (2,6%) uses a substantial part (11,2%) of the legal aid. This paper sheds light on the occurrence of multiple use of legal aid and gives insight into the frequency and characteristics of multiple use.
In the research described in this article, we have made use of the data from 2000 until 2009 concerning legal aid that was provided by the Legal Aid Board. This dataset contains over 3 million cases (so-called certificates that are issued by the Board). The main difference between this research and other (paths to justice) studies is that the dataset contains actually provided legal aid and not self-reported problems by clients. Therefore, the representativeness is guaranteed and no false recollections can occur. At the same time, this means that the research is limited to people who are entitled to legal aid (approximately 39% of the Dutch population) and have actually received a certificate.
The results show that the provision of legal aid leads to new cases for which legal aid is again provided. Also, certain certificates coincide with and act as a trigger for certain other certificates. In the discussion we clarify the significance and implications of the results that are presented. Furthermore, we discuss the recently ordered budget cut in legal aid in the Netherlands. We describe ways to decrease the use and expenditure of the Legal Aid System, some of which are already implemented in the system. Finally, we discuss possible other (non-legal) problems that can be experienced by multiple users of the Legal Aid System.

Since 1 January 2005, citizens in the Netherlands are obliged to show their ID if a police officer asks them to. The (extended) identification duty is meant to prevent crimes and to improve the enforcement of the law. Bart van Klink (Tilburg University) and Nicolle Zeegers (University of Groningen) have investigated how the identification duty is enforced in legal practice by interviewing 12 police officers in 4 different cities and looking at statistical data on enforcement. According to most of the police officers interviewed the identification duty helps to remove anonymity from citizens, which may keep them from committing crimes (in particular crimes in groups, e.g., hooligans). Moreover, the identification duty appears to be instrumental in normalizing citizens: by asking for an ID, police officers are able to discourage behaviour that conflicts with some (legal or moral) standard of normality. This small-scale empirical research indicates that police officers stress the law’s preventive effect. Although prevention may be a valuable goal, it may also constitute a pretext for far-reaching intrusions on citizens’ freedom. An important normative question is how to prevent the police from using this legal instrument too actively for the sake of prevention.