Zoekresultaat: 2 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid x Jaar 2011 x
Artikel

Over objectieve en subjectieve onveiligheid

En de (on)zin van het rationaliteitdebat

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 4 2011
Trefwoorden fear of crime, fear victimization paradox, rationality debate
Auteurs Stefaan Pleysier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution focuses on ‘fear of crime’ research. Departing from the classic distinction between crime and victimization as objective threats, on the one hand, and fear of crime as a subjective and emotional interpretation of that threat, on the other hand, the research tradition is confronted with the so-called fear victimization paradox. This paradox emerges from the observation that fear of crime is greater among women and elderly people, while these groups actually are less at risk of becoming a crime victim. It has immersed the research tradition in a dominant debate on the rationality of the fear of crime, with two opposing paradigms: rationalist and symbolic.Whilst both the paradox and the different paradigms in the debate offer a view at the core of fear of crime research, and illustrate how similar empirical observations can lead to differing explanations, and policy implications for that matter, we argue that the fear victimization paradox and the rationality debate surrounding this paradox, has occupied the bulk of research on fear of crime with what is essentially a nonsensical and redundant debate.


Stefaan Pleysier
Prof. dr. S. (Stefaan) Pleysier is docent Jeugdcriminologie en Methoden van onderzoek aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de K.U.Leuven, en verbonden aan het Leuvens Instituut voor Criminologie (LINC) waar hij co-coördinator is van de onderzoekslijn Jeugdcriminologie. E-mail: stefaan.pleysier@law.kuleuven.be
Artikel

Integrale veiligheidszorg en de burgemeester

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, Aflevering 1 2011
Trefwoorden integraal, burgemeester, veiligheidsbeleid, religie
Auteurs Ruth Prins en Lex Cachet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Changing public safety problems as well as an increasing societal demand for public safety made way for new policy approaches. During the 1990s, the so called ‘integral safety approach’ was introduced in the Netherlands. This approach manifested itself mainly on the municipal level where the mayor is being held responsible for managing public safety and order. The central question raised in this article is: what are the consequences of an integral approach to public safety problems for the mayor when managing local order and public safety? We will demonstrate that ‘integrality’ is no clear cut concept. Careful inspection of the concept learns that it has multiple meanings. Of these various meanings, especially the ambition to address public safety problems by means of ‘new alliances’ characterized the actual implementation of integral policies. However, working together within these new alliances uniting various more or less independent actors from both the public and private sector, seemed to be hampered by a lack of coordination and control. In that sense, the introduction of the integral approach had consequences for steering and control of public safety policies. These consequences have to be addressed, especially by the mayor who is accountable for local order and safety. The mayor had attributed to him – first in practice, soon by law as well – the role of director of public safety policy on the municipal level. However, as we will demonstrate in this article, the mayor lacks an important trait needed for effective directorship: decisive powers. Therefore the mayor is not able to realize effective cooperation between partners within the new alliances of the integral approach to public safety problems. As a potential solution, we will describe the characteristics of a ‘model of anticipation’ granting the mayor a certain level of decisive powers to be used as an ultimum remedium.


Ruth Prins
Ruth Prins MSc is promovendus Burgemeester en Veiligheid, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Contactadres: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50 (kamer M7-06), Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam. Tel. 010-4088714, e-mail: prins@fsw.eur.nl

Lex Cachet
Dr. Lex Cachet is Universitair Hoofddocent Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Opleiding Bestuurskunde. E-mail: cachet@fsw.eur.nl
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.