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.

In transnational Dutch-Moroccan divorce cases, spouses can come into contact with two different legal systems. Many different kinds of organisations are involved, offering social and legal advice and aid in these transnational divorces: advising and referring clients, educating spouses and professionals, and influencing policy. In this article these organisations are analysed as participants in a transnational field of legal aid, using Moore’s concept of the semi-autonomous social field. It becomes clear that these organisations share norms on transnational divorce: they frame transnational divorce as a women’s problem, and one of complex, interacting rules and regulations. These norms form the source of rules on how to handle law in transnational Dutch-Moroccan divorce cases.

Transnationalism and migration are recognised contributors to legal pluralism. Scholars of legal pluralism state that in conflicts, social actors sustain their claims with arguments from coexisting legal systems. They manoeuvre between different legal systems, or contradicting norms within one system, to achieve the most satisfactory decision in a conflict. In doing so, they use norms as discursive tools. Indeed, according to data on domestic workers in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, this manoeuvring with norms as discursive tools is often recognisable in conflicts between workers and their employers. However, transnational contractual norms and the legal pluralism they create are not merely discursive tools in existing conflicts; they are also regularly the cause of conflicts. Domestic workers conclude agreements with agents in their countries of origin, while employers conclude agreements with different agents in the destination countries. Both parties believe the other party has signed the same contract, while in reality that is not the case. Because of the differences between the two sets of contractual norms, these norms cause conflicts; they are not merely discursive tools. This finding calls for a division between different types of conflicts, which is proposed here for the purpose of socio-legal analysis of conflicts in general and particularly in situations of transnationalism and legal pluralism.

This article presents some critical comments concerning the conceptual, normative and institutional foundations of Teubner’s plea for a ‘common law constitution’. My comments question the desirability of the means chosen for attaining this objective as well as their efficacy. In particular, I have difficulties with the ambivalent role that is assigned to man, either as a person or as a human being; with the reduction of social problems to problems of communication; and, finally and most importantly, with the attempt to conceive of law and politics beyond established legal and political institutions, which in my view is doomed to fail. The conclusion offers some tentative suggestions for an alternative approach.

Not everyone using alcohol turns aggressive. The effect of a substance like alcohol works differently for different individuals. This is not only due to the substance itself, but also to the drinker's attitude, state of mind and personality, as well as the physical, social and cultural settings in which drinking occurs. The relation between alcohol consumption and aggression is therefore a complex one. Moreover alcohol consumption often takes place in settings and situations where other aggression stimulating factors are present. This article explores the relation between alcohol and aggression on the basis of existing literature. Attention goes to the effects of the substance itself, the drinker and the context in which the drinking takes place.

This study examined whether variation in victimization among train ticket inspectors can be explained by the Social Information Processing (SIP) model which underlies the process of interaction. The study (N=125) shows that the amount of victimization is associated with encoding and emotions. Ticket inspectors who perceive more ‘neutral’ than ‘hostile’ cues report less victimization. Emotions have an indirect relation with the amount of victimization. The seriousness of the victimization is related to encoding, response generation, and response evaluation. Less serious victimization is found when neutral rather than hostile cues are observed, less aggressive responses are generated, and when aggressive responses are evaluated negatively and social responses positively. The results suggest that two types of victimization exist among ticket inspectors: the victim who is a relatively frequent victim and the victim who is victim of more serious forms of aggression.

The transmission of violent delinquency between men from three consecutive generations is examined. Men with violent fathers are shown to have an increased risk to become violent offenders. This transmission of violent delinquency is larger than the transmission of non-violent delinquency. Moreover, it is shown that the timing of the paternal violent crime plays an important role in the intergenerational transmission of violent delinquency. The results are more in line with dynamic theories than with static theories. Though, more research is necessary to examine the precise mechanisms behind the intergenerational transmission of violent delinquency.

Teenagers between twelve and eighteen years of age are protected by Dutch criminal law against sexual encounters that can be described as ‘voluntarily’. If teenagers are approached without force or approach a person themselves autonomously they are thus protected against such contact, but they could have played a sexual active role nevertheless. How do the alleged offenders in these criminal cases make contact and how are the punishable interactions possible considering the facilitative role of the victim? This paper will deal with the way the officials of the police and justice departments value sexual contacts with youngsters in a diverse range of settings. The crucial question is how the professionals dealing with the protection of youngsters and at the same time safeguarding the legal rights of offenders come to their juridical deliberation.

On the basis of current definitions and approaches of restorative justice and crime prevention, and making use of a two-dimensional typology of crime prevention, this article develops a conceptual framework and seeks to offer points of connections and departure at the theoretical level between restorative justice practices and different models of offender-oriented, victim-oriented and community-oriented prevention. In order to face some of the present limitations of restorative justice, in particular the missing link to causes of crime at the societal-structural level, the author widens the perspective of restorative justice to the broader notion of ‘community justice’. The challenge for restorative justice is, then, to integrate polycentric problem-solving approaches into its operational models.