Zoekresultaat: 11 artikelen

x
Jaar 2014 x

Annemieke Wolthuis
Annemieke Wolthuis is senior-onderzoeker bij het Verwey-Jonker Instituut, vicevoorzitter van het European Forum for Restorative Justice en redacteur van dit tijdschrift.

Bas van Stokkom
Bas van Stokkom is als docent en onderzoeker verbonden aan de Radboud Universiteit in Nijmegen. www.basvanstokkom.nl.

Maartje Berger
Maartje Berger is als specialist jeugdstrafrecht werkzaam bij Defence for Children International.
Article

Access_open Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden legal advice, police interrogation, European Union, England and Wales, France
Auteurs Anna Ogorodova en Taru Spronken
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In October 2013, the European Union adopted a Directive, which guarantees, inter alia, the right of access to a lawyer to suspects of criminal offences from the outset of police custody and during police interrogation. However, adoption of the relevant legislation is not sufficient to ensure that this right becomes effective in practice. A range of practical measures will have to be taken by the Member States’ authorities and the legal profession to effectuate the implementation of the right to custodial legal advice. This article aims to identify the practical factors that may influence the implementation of the Directive, based on the findings of a recent normative and empirical study conducted by the authors. The research was carried out in four European jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, the Netherlands and Scotland), and it consisted of analysis of regulations, observations of daily practice in police stations, accompanying lawyers who provided custodial legal advice, and interviews with criminal justice practitioners. The article provides a range of recommendations on the practical measures to be undertaken by the EU Member States and national Bar associations aiming at improving the protection of suspects’ rights in police custody in practice.


Anna Ogorodova
Anna Ogorodova, LLM is PhD researcher at the University of Maastricht.

Taru Spronken
Dr Taru Spronken is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at Maastricht University and Advocate General at the Supreme Court in the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open Juveniles’ Right to Counsel during Police Interrogations: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of a Youth-Specific Approach, with a Particular Focus on the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden legal representation, counsel, juvenile justice, police interrogations, children’s rights
Auteurs Prof. Dr. Ton Liefaard Ph.D. LL.M en Yannick van den Brink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The right to counsel of juveniles at the stage of police interrogations has gained significant attention since the Salduz ruling of the European Court on Human Rights in 2008. The legislative and policy developments that have taken place since then and that are still ongoing – both on a regional (European) and domestic (Dutch) level – reveal a shared belief that juvenile suspects must be awarded special protection in this phase of the criminal justice proceedings. This calls for a youth-specific approach as fundamentally different from the common approach for adults. At the same time, there seems to be ambivalence concerning the justification and concrete implications of such a youth-specific approach. This article aims to clarify the underlying rationale and significance of a youth specific approach to the right to counsel at the stage of police interrogations on the basis of an interdisciplinary analysis of European Court on Human Rights case law, international children’s rights standards and relevant developmental psychological insights. In addition, this article aims to position this right of juveniles in conflict with the law in the particular context of the Dutch juvenile justice system and provide concrete recommendations to the Dutch legislator.


Prof. Dr. Ton Liefaard Ph.D. LL.M
Prof. Dr. T. Liefaard is Professor of Children’s Rights (UNICEF Chair) at Leiden Law School, Department of Child Law; t.liefaard@law.leidenuniv.nl.

Yannick van den Brink
Y.N. van den Brink, LL.M, MA, is PhD researcher at Leiden Law School, Department of Child Law; y.n.van.den.brink@law.leidenuniv.nl.
Article

Access_open False Confessions in the Lab: A Review

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden confession, interrogation, evidence
Auteurs Eric Rassin Ph.D. en Han Israëls
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Intuitively, confession is a strong piece of evidence, because it appears unlikely that a suspect would confess to a crime he did not commit, thereby acting against his own best interest. Surprisingly, experimental studies show that innocent and well-educated individuals do tend to confess falsely when questioned about something they did not in fact do. In this contribution, an overview is presented of the experimental research on confession evidence. Limitations and implications of the scientific insights are discussed.


Eric Rassin Ph.D.
Eric Rassin is Endowed Professor of Legal Psychology at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the School of Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Han Israëls
Han Israëls is Assistant Professor in Legal Psychology at the Maastricht University.
Article

Access_open Legal Assistance and Police Interrogation

(Problematic Aspects of) Dutch Criminal Procedure in Relation to European Union and the Council of Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2014
Trefwoorden Legal assistance, police interrogation, Dutch Criminal Proceedings, EU Directive
Auteurs Paul Mevis en Joost Verbaan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper discusses the rise of a fundamental issue in Dutch criminal proceedings. The presence of a lawyer prior to and during police interrogations has for a long time been a matter open for debate in the Netherlands. Allowing legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations has been researched on several occasions in the previous century and the beginning of this century. In the Netherlands, one of the most important reasons for not admitting legal assistance was and is founded in the confident reliance on the professionalism and integrity of police officers and justice officials in dealing with the interests of suspects. However, after the Salduz case (ECHR 27 November 2008, Appl. No. 36391/02, Salduz v. Turkey), the Dutch government was compelled to draft legal provisions in order to facilitate legal assistance during and prior to police interrogations. The initial drafts still contained a hesitant approach on admitting the lawyer to the actual interrogation. The EU-Directive of November 2013 (Pb EU 2013, L249) set out further reaching standards compelling the Dutch government to create new drafts. In a ruling of April 2014, the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:2014:770) argued that the judgements of the ECtHR were too casuistic to derive an absolute right to have a lawyer present during police interrogation. However, they urged the legislator to draft legislation on this matter and warned that its judgement in this could be altered in future caused by legal developments. The Dutch legislator already proposed new draft legislation in February. In this paper it is examined whether the provisions of the new drafts meet the standards as set out in the EU-Directive as well as by the ECtHR.


Paul Mevis
Paul Mevis is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law of the Erasmus. He has been a visiting professor at the universities of Münster, Mmabato (South Africa) and in Moldavia, the Ukrain and in Frankfurt an der Oder. Besides his academic activities, Paul Mevis is Honorary Judge at the Criminal Court of Rotterdam and Honorary Judge at the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, since 1994 and 1998 respectively. He has been parttime Judge at the Court of Arnhem (1990-1994) and is member of the Commission of Supervision of prisons (2006-2008). Paul Mevis is also member of the board of editors of several journals in the field of criminal law and human rights law and commentator for the journal ‘Nederlandse Jurisprudentie’ on criminal cases. He was chairman of the ‘Commissie Strafvordelijke gegevensvergaring in de informatiemaatschappij’ (2000-2001), of which the report has lead to the Bill of the same name. He is a member of the School of Human Rights Research and the Research School on Safety and Security in Society.

Joost Verbaan
Mr. J.H.J. (Joost) Verbaan is an assistant-professor at the Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. He teaches Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure law. Mr. Verbaan is the Managing Director of the Erasmus Center for Police Studies (ECPS). The ECPS organises courses on criminal and criminal procedure law for law enforcement agencies as well as the prosecution. Mr. Verbaan has been involved in many researches in the practical field of investigation. He has taken part in the research for the Governmental Institute of Scientific Research and Documentation on the effects of the presence of an attorney during the first police interrogation.For the same institute together with professor Mevis he researched the Modalities of Serving in comparative law perspective.He served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Dutch Antillean Criminal Code and served the secretary of the Committee to draft a new Criminal Code for Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curacao. He served the secretary of the Committee to Draft a common Criminal Procedure Code in the Caribbean regions of Aruba, Curacao , Sint Maarten and the BES-territories. In the republic of Surinam Mr. Verbaan has worked in the legal advisory board of the Committee founded in order to codify a new Criminal Code for the republic of Surinam.
Artikel

Access_open The Normative Foundation of Legal Orders: A Balance Between Reciprocity and Mutuality

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden reciprocity, mutuality, social morality of duties, legal morality of rights, intergenerational justice
Auteurs Dorien Pessers PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Reciprocity seems to figure as a self-evident normative foundation of legal orders. Yet a clear understanding of the often opaque role that reciprocity plays in this regard demands drawing a conceptual distinction. This article views reciprocity as a social morality of duties, in opposition to mutuality, which concerns a legal morality of rights. In everyday life these two broad categories of human interaction interfere in a dynamic way. They need to be brought into an appropriate balance in legal orders, for the sake of justice. The practical relevance of this conceptual distinction is clarified by the debate about justice between present and future generations. I argue that this debate should be viewed as a debate about the terms of reciprocity rather than relations of mutuality. Acknowledging the deeply reciprocal nature of the relations between past, present and future generations would lead to a more convincing moral theory about intergenerational justice.


Dorien Pessers PhD
Dorien Pessers is Professor of the Legal and Theoretical Foundations of the Private Sphere at the VU University and at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses primarily on the theoretical foundations of the public and private spheres.
Artikel

Access_open Reciprocity: a fragile equilibrium

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden reciprocity, exchange theory, natural law theory, dyadic relations, corrective justice
Auteurs Prof. dr. Pauline Westerman PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Reciprocity may serve to explain or to justify law. In its latter capacity, which is the topic of this article, reciprocity is commonly turned into a highly idealized notion, as either a balance between two free and equal parties or as the possibility of communication tout court. Both ideals lack empirical reference. If sociological and anthropological literature on forms of exchange is taken into account, it should be acknowledged that reciprocal relations are easy to destabilize. The dynamics of exchange invites exclusion and inequality. For this reason reciprocity should not be presupposed as the normative underpinning of law; instead, law should be presupposed in order to turn reciprocity into a desirable ideal.


Prof. dr. Pauline Westerman PhD
Pauline Westerman is Professor in Philosophy of Law at the University of Groningen and member of staff at the Academy for Legislation in the Hague. She is editor of The Theory and Practice of Legislation, a journal published by Hart, Oxford. She writes mainly on legal methodology and legislation, especially on alternative forms of legislation. For more information as well as publications, see her personal website: <www.paulinewesterman.nl>.
Artikel

Access_open What Makes Age Discrimination Special? A Philosophical Look at the ECJ Case Law

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2014
Trefwoorden age discrimination, intergenerational justice, complete-life view, statistical discrimination, anti-discrimination law
Auteurs Axel Gosseries
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper provides an account of what makes age discrimination special, going through a set of possible justifications. In the end, it turns out that a full understanding of the specialness of age-based differential treatment requires that we consider together the ‘reliable proxy,’ the ‘complete-life neutrality,’ the ‘sequence efficiency’ and the ‘affirmative egalitarian’ accounts. Depending on the specific age criteria, all four accounts may apply or only some of them. This is the first key message of this paper. The second message of the paper has to do with the age group/birth cohort distinction. All measures that have a differential impact on different cohorts also tend to have a differential impact on various age groups during the transition. The paper points at the practical implications of anti-age-discrimination law for differential treatment between birth cohorts. The whole argument is confronted all along with ECJ cases.


Axel Gosseries
Axel Gosseries is a permanent research fellow at the Belgian FRS-FNRS and a Professor at the University of Louvain (UCL, Belgium) where he is based at the Hoover Chair in Economic and Social Ethics.
Artikel

Verzet of collaboratie? Hoe de strijd tegen genocide kan bijdragen aan genocide

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2014
Trefwoorden Rwanda, genocide against the Tutsi, denial, politics of genocide
Auteurs Roland Moerland
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The politization of the concept of genocide by Western states has been severely criticised, because it has led to an impunity for genocidal crimes. In certain instances however, such criticism has contributed to the dynamic of victimization, instead of resisting it. The article discusses how Professor Edward S. Herman and journalist David Peterson’s staunch criticism of the politics of genocide amounts to a brazen denial of the genocide against the Tutsi which recycles much of the extremist discourse of the former Rwandan authorities that were implicated in genocide. In this case Herman and Peterson’s resistance against the politics of genocide has profound implications, several of which the article will address.


Roland Moerland
Mr. Roland Moerland is als docent en onderzoeker verbonden aan de vakgroep Strafrecht en Criminologie van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Universiteit Maastricht. E-mail: roland.moerland@ maastrichtuniversity.nl
Artikel

‘Resistance Through Rituals’, ‘Policing the Crisis’ and the present conjuncture

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2014
Trefwoorden conjuncture, neo-liberalism, hegemony, subcultures, exceptional state
Auteurs Dr. Tony Jefferson
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article deals with three questions. What did resistance mean in the 1970s and what does it mean today? Have the rituals of resistance changed over time? What is the status today of moral panic theory? These questions directly refer to ‘Resistance Through Rituals’ (1976) and ‘Policing the Crisis’ (1978). For that reason, one of the authors answers these key questions in a contemporary framework of hegemony, security and neoliberal politics, and points to the continuing relevance of the political and critical tradition of British cultural studies.


Dr. Tony Jefferson
Dr. Tony Jefferson is emeritus hoogleraar aan Keele University (UK). E-mail: tonyjefferson45@gmail.com
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.