Against the background of a discussion of classical and modern concepts of punishment, the first implying the imposition of suffering as essence and the second encompassing all varieties of sanctions implying restrictions but not necessarily some form of suffering the author rejects the suggestion of the second concept, that punishment should be defined without any reference to imposing suffering. There are conceptual advantages to sticking to the classical definition of punishment, such as the fact that it is clearly differentiated from the concept of measurements, which are sanctions imposed without any demand of ‘guilt’ on the side of a perpetrator. Also there are good reasons to maintain the element of (imposition of ) ‘intended pain’ in the concept of punishment, but it is this element – the intentional imposition of pain and suffering – that makes the author reject the activity of punishing as unethical. Non-violent sanctions are conceivable and feasible and should on ethical grounds be preferred. This is explored with reference to the work of Tähtinen. In close connection with this idea the author argues that we should redefine criminal justice (in the Dutch language: ‘strafrecht’ meaning the right to punish and laws regarding punishment) to mean that it is the discipline that responds to crimes and offences, without any defining reference to punishment (‘misdaadrecht’, meaning the laws regarding ((responding to)) crime).

This article analyses a criminal family. It is not the individual, but the family as a social entity that is central to this approach. The Van D.’s are a family of eleven brothers with a collective history of crime. Raised with anti-authoritarian norms, violence, alcohol and a strong sense of loyalty, they were known as an ‘army of brothers’ dominating the streets of H-town. The criminal family as object of study proves valuable in understanding the influence of contextual factors, subculture, and stigmatization. In the case of the Van D.’s, blood ties create cohesion and conflict at the same time.

Considerable political pressure is currently being brought to impose severe punishments, and it is frequently suggested that these punishments would enhance the wellbeing of victims and achieve ‘closure’. Populist images, such as ‘victims have a right to revenge’ have gained great influence. To what extent would therapeutic professionals have to support victim needs that are shaped within such punitive contexts? In this paper it is first argued that revenge embraces ambivalent meanings. Although avengers are lauded in the popular imagination, feelings of revenge are still viewed as ethically unacceptable. In recent decades, however, a penal populism has been gaining ground as a result of which revenge was stripped of its pejorative associations. In a punitive climate it is believed that victims would demand harsher penalties and that such penalties would promote closure and peace. Research findings show however that revenge may bring temporary relief, but anger rumination precludes healing. Subsequently the question is discussed whether two different forms of victim participation, victim impact statements and restorative justice conferences, might temper revenge feelings. Because VIS-participants (dealing with high levels of anger and fear) believe that their statements will culminate in longer sentences, they are generally frustrated that the imposed sentence is not tough enough. After the procedure they keep on viewing the offender as a malign person. Restorative procedures generally show an opposite picture. Finally this paper is criticizing the tendency of victim-oriented therapeutization within criminal justice and restorative justice. It is argued that the voice of the victim and the process of emotional healing should be separated strictly.

In this article attention is paid to the thoughts and feelings which underlie criminal law and restorative justice, as well as the question whether those thoughts and feelings have to be regarded as rational or irrational. For this purpose, the author has firstly examined the relationship between thinking and feeling from the perspective of the so-called cognitive emotion theory as put forth by the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the Dutch philosopher Mirjam van Reijen. In addition, this contribution also addresses the ideas of the Stoics, Spinoza and Schopenhauer, since the aforementioned theory goes back on the ideas of these philosophers. These philosophers depart from the view on man and world in which interconnectedness plays an important role – as the opposite of separateness. This view which reflects the mystic-religious perspective on man and world forms an important connecting thread in this article, as this turns out to have direct consequences for the idea about the (ir)rationality of certain thoughts and feelings, as well as for the (ir)rationality of criminal law and restorative justice. Special attention is paid to emotions that are relevant within the context of criminal law and restorative justice – which include anger, resentment, hatred, fear and compassion. After having explained – on the basis of the cognitive emotion theory – how thinking and feeling relate to each other and which thoughts and feelings – on the basis of the perspective of interconnectedness – have to be considered as (ir)rational, the article examines whether punishment is (ir)rational and whether the regular theories which legitimate punishment (i.e. retribution and prevention theories) are ‘rationalities of something irrational’. Furthermore, it is assessed whether the thoughts and feelings behind restorative justice are (ir)rational. The article concludes with a suggestion in which the main findings of this contribution are summarized, in order to stimulate discussion.

Fifty three shades of grey refers to the radical transformation of policing and security in society from a traditional public – and foremost ‘blue’ – police system into a hybrid(semi)public and private policing system which is losing its dominant – and visible – blue character. Using the criminological concepts ‘police as an institute’ and ‘policing as a process’ the ongoing blurring of boundaries between different public and private organisations is discussed in the context of the proliferation of different forms of multi-agency cooperation. Whereas in the traditional discourse of the public police system a strong tradition of analysing the democratic nature of policing exists, in the public and scientific perception of the new, variegated police constellation such notions are still lacking, which contributes to the relative lack of political control, the defective democratic accountability and fragile human rights in the grey areas. The public discourse on the police remains too narrowly focused on the public police system. ‘Normal science’ of policing needs to break away from ‘police as an institute’ to incorporate new research questions and new concepts regarding ‘policing as a process’.

Kees Schuyt has written an extensive biography of the famous Dutch professor of criminology and literary polemicist of the 1960 in The Netherlands Willem Nagel. This colourful and controversial figure is dealt with as a fascinating mixture of Nagel’s life as lawyer, freedom fighter (against the German occupation during the Second World War), scientist and literary writer. Nagel’s original contribution to criminology is considered as somewhat less prominent than Schuyt would want to have it.

Much of developmental and life course criminological research addresses either the onset and escalation of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence, or the desistance from crime during the adult years. Far less attention has been paid to the years in which adolescents first make the transition to adulthood. Over the last 50 years due to increased educational demands this transition period has become prolonged and increasingly deinstitutionalized, resulting in a new life stage denoted as the emerging adult period. This introductory paper describes the ways in which this newly formed life stage between ages 18 and 28 is relevant for criminology, questions our knowledge on criminal career development during this period and explores new research avenues that may contribute to a full-fledged criminology of the emerging adulthood.

In this contribution the question is addressed how measures that aim to hold ex-convicts from occupying certain jobs and positions can be justified and what their limitations are. In the literature on collateral sentencing in particular four conditions are stressed. First, the vulnerable character of the occupation or activity involved. Second, there should be a strong relation between the conviction and the risk that has to be avoided. Third, collateral consequences should be individualized and only be imposed against those posing specific and demonstrable risks. Finally, a broad proportionality test should be applied on them, harsh civil disqualification should not be applied for relatively minor offences and burdensome restrictions may not be imposed in order to prevent relatively trivial risks. This theoretical model is applied on the regulation and practice of the Dutch conduct certificate.

Recentelijk werden de hoofdverdachten in de ‘Klimop-zaak’ door de Rechtbank Haarlem in eerste aanleg veroordeeld tot uiteenlopende straffen. Strafrechtelijke vervolging van fraude zou er mede toe moeten dienen witteboordencriminaliteit ondubbelzinnig te veroordelen. Welke rol spelen de media bij deze pogingen om een grens te trekken in het grijze gebied tussen innovatief ondernemerschap en verwerpelijke roekeloosheid?

Juvenile detention and the custodial measure ‘institutional placement order’ (plaatsing in een inrichting voor jeugdigen; PIJ-measure) are often administered by the court under conditions at first. It is unknown to what extend it is possible to make a distinction between a punishment and a treatment measure looking at both conditional penalties. In order to gain more information about the differences and similarities between these conditional penalties, the verdicts of juvenile offenders have been studied. The study involves a group of juvenile offenders with a conditional PIJ-measure and a group of juvenile offenders with a conditional juvenile detention. The results reveal that there are considerable similarities between the two groups. The high prevalence of behavioural problems and disorders in the group juvenile offenders with a conditional juvenile detention is particularly notable. Conditional juvenile detention may include treatment of the behavioural problems and disorders, but if the conditional juvenile detention is transformed into unconditional juvenile detention there will be no individual and specific treatment of these disorders.

To achieve effective outcomes in youth justice, youth criminal law should help influence youth criminal behavior and support the young persons development to maturity. In New-Zealand, youth criminal behavior is dealt with by Family Group Conferences according to the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act. This way of dealing with youth criminal behavior supports the development of young persons and requires involvement of the young persons family and the victim. Research shows that conferencing in youth justice leads to less repeat offending. This supports the conclusion that Dutch youth justice should adopt the New-Zealand principles.