Criminologists have by and large sought to explain crime by the deficiencies people may have. It took till the 1970s until the idea that crime can also be caused by structural power inequalities got an actual name in criminology: crimes of the powerful. Starting with the works of Willem Bonger and Edward Ross in the early 20^th century, the author analyses how critical criminologists like Frank Pearce introduced the term ‘crimes of the powerful’ in the 1970s and how this concept was subsequently applied to gender- and racial inequalities, state crime, corruption et cetera, whilst pointing at the topical relevance of using a lens of ‘crimes of the powerful’ as a sensitising concept to analyse present-day problems, ranging from sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church to the banking sector or indeed the expropriation of indigenous lands in the Amazon by soy-farmers and timber traders.

Multi-national corporations are increasingly facing attention and disapproval by different actors, including authorities, public and (non-) commercial organizations. Digital globalization and especially social media as a low-cost, highly interactive and multidirectional platform shape a unique context for this rising attention. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to top-down approaches and strategies that corporations use to avoid stigmatization and sanctioning of their behaviour. Reactions to corporate harm are, however, seldom researched from a labelling perspective. As a result, corporations are not considered as objects towards whom labelling is targeted but rather as actors who hamper such processes and who, as moral entrepreneurs, influence which behaviour is labelled deviant. Based on theoretical analysis of literature and case studies, this article will discuss how the process of labelling has changed in light of the digitalized, late-modern society and consequently, how the process should be revisited to be applicable for corporate deviance. Given a diversification of moral entrepreneurs and increasingly dependency of labelling and meaning-making on the online sphere, two new forms of labelling are introduced that specifically target institutions; that is bottom-up and horizontal labelling.

Hoewel de rechtspositie van slachtoffers de afgelopen decennia verstevigd lijkt, blijft de relatie tussen slachtoffer en strafrecht ongemakkelijk. Rechtswetenschappers tonen zich bezorgd dat de toenemende aandacht voor de belangen van slachtoffers uitmondt in ‘geïnstitutionaliseerde wreedheid.’ Deze zorg wordt echter gevoed door een verkeerd begrip van slachtofferschap en heeft slecht begrepen wat het slachtoffer nu eigenlijk van het recht verlangt. Deze bijdrage probeert de vraag van het slachtoffer aan het recht tot begrip te brengen. Wij zullen de onrechtservaring van het slachtoffer conceptualiseren als een ontologisch alleen en verlaten zijn van het slachtoffer. Het aanknopingspunt om de relatie tussen slachtoffer en recht opnieuw te denken zoeken wij in deze verlatenheid. De kern van het betoog is dat het slachtoffer (mede) in het recht beschutting zoekt tegen deze verlatenheid, maar ook altijd onvermijdelijk tegen de grenzen van het recht aanloopt. Van een rechtssysteem dat zich volledig uitlevert aan de noden van slachtoffers kan dan ook geen sprake zijn. Integendeel, het recht moet zijn belang voor slachtoffers deels zien in de onderkenning van zijn eigen beperkingen om onrecht te keren, in plaats van de onrechtservaring van het slachtoffer weg te moffelen, te koloniseren of ridiculiseren.

In this article Tom Daems and René van Swaaningen discuss work and life of the late Dutch historian Pieter Spierenburg. The article is based on an interview the authors conducted with Spierenburg in November 2018 as well as his published work and excerpts of an unpublished biography. The article discusses in particular themes related to his interest in, and contributions to, the history of crime and punishment, in particular Spierenburg’s path-breaking book The Spectacle of Suffering (1984), his relation to Norbert Elias and the Amsterdam School and his critique of Michel Foucault.

This research aims to contribute to the development of an adequate handling of the complex, conflictual family situation that occurs during a parental abduction. The following research question is answered: to what extent can the methods of conflict resolution – in the Belgian context – be optimized so that the interests of the child are guaranteed, in the light of the theoretical insights provided by Glasl’s conflict theory? Attention is paid to the limited effectiveness of legal procedures on the one hand and the mediation on the other. The method of de-escalation, developed by Glasl, offers a useful diagnostic tool for the conflict counsellor. In addition, the metaphor of the ladder he uses is extremely valuable as a tool for gaining insight into the mechanisms of conflict-escalation. A clear theoretical framework for the judiciary in the interpretation of an escalated conflict can lead to a better understanding of the possibilities and limits of cooperation between ex-partners, which benefits the best interests of the child.

In the present study, the role of genetic and cultural transmission in intergenerational continuity of rule-breaking behavior (RBB) was investigated. Based on the resemblance within 3,982 Dutch twin pairs, aged 13 to 17 years, the relative importance of genetic (G), shared environmental (C), and unique environmental (E) influences on RBB was estimated. Cultural transmission, the process of passing on knowledge, norms and values, can lead to similarities within families, and forms part of the shared environment of children growing up in the same family. The authors found no evidence for shared environmental influences, and consequently no indication of a role for cultural transmission. Genetic influences explained 60 percent of the variance in rule-breaking behavior at age 13 to 17, implying that intergenerational continuity at this age is mainly driven by genetic transmission.