Organizing restorative justice practices around crimes involving extremist violence remains a difficult task. It is not self-evident to bring perpetrators with very specific and radical ideas into contact with their victims. Nevertheless, interesting initiatives have been made in a number of European countries. In Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland, among others, initiatives were taken in response to the extremist violence that these countries experienced at the end of the 20th century. These initiatives have a very specific context and praxis, initiated ad hoc with attention to the specific needs of those involved. In no case can they be considered standard models or generalized practices. This contribution describes some of these initiatives in Spain, Italy and Northern Ireland and reflects on the potential uses of these dialogues in general.

In this article, some of the findings of a practice and policy oriented research project on ‘radicalisation’ are discussed. The research was carried out in a partnership between three Belgian universities and two field organisations during the years 2017-2019. The project aimed at a ‘Constructive analysis on the attitudes, policies and programmes that relate to “radicalisation”’ (CONRAD). Restorative justice offered the initial framework to design and to set up the project. This article offers some findings and reflections on the opportunities (and the limits) that were found in the project with respect to the relevance of restorative justice. This part of the research was done on the basis of a frame-analysis on the one hand, and field work on the other. The article first presents the restorative justice assumptions that formed the backbone of the project. Then, the method of ‘inductive frame-analysis’ is presented as this was applied to a sample of media and policy documents that reported about ‘radicalisation’ and ‘de-radicalisation’ related issues in Belgium. This resulted in the identification of four frames and eight counterframes. The field work in the form of ‘participatory action research’ with young persons and their organisations in the cities of Brussels and Verviers is then discussed, revealing a complex situation of social tensions. It is argued then that the use of frames and counterframes can help those involved in, or concerned about, social problems to look at these issues from another perspective, through another lens. Based on the method of photo-elicitation, cartoons related to frames and counterframes were designed in the project as a tool to facilitate talking about ‘radicalisation’ from different perspectives. The article ends with reflections on the relevance of restorative justice in dealing with ‘radicalisation’ and violent extremism. A broad relational and participatory approach to respond to these ‘phenomena’ at societal level is proposed.

This contribution advocates a fresh look at counteracting radicalization. Two frameworks are used for this. In the first place, that is the restorative justice that we have coined here as ‘making amends’. We need this normative framework because it provides clues for the prevention of ‘transgressing’ forms of radicalization, which can lead to extremism and terrorism. Secondly, we use an Activism of Hope framework, which states that we may and must resist social deprivation and injustice. After all, deprivation and injustice are the breeding ground for radicalization.

Reports by citizens are a great source of information for the police. Local residents often know well what is going on in their neighborhood and which situations are suspicious. In this study, an online survey was conducted to investigate what drives citizens to report to the police. A wide range of individual, social and institutional drivers were explored. The results show that the more often people have reported anything to the police in the past, the higher their risk perception, self-efficacy, citizen participation and police legitimacy. Furthermore, participants with a higher degree of self-efficacy, response efficacy, trust in the police and police legitimacy appeared to be more willing to report in the future. An open question regarding what motivates people the most to report show that response efficacy (the idea to what extent reporting has an effect on increasing safety and reducing crime) and altruistic values (justice, to help society and punish the perpetrators) were mentioned most frequently.

Citizens investigating crimes themselves is a growing trend, because of democratization of information (e.g. social media), tools (e.g. apps) and knowledge (e.g. explanimations on YouTube). More and more citizens do their own research as modern Sherlocks. The police has to handle these trends in line with participant wishes and the law, but does not yet have concrete tools to do so. This article explores how the police participate in contemporary citizen criminal investigations, including the difficulties and benefits experienced. The obtained insights of the presented research serve as guidance, which can help police officers understand how to participate with citizens who have started, or want to start, a criminal investigation. The presented model explains how police can use it to better guide and stimulate, but also stop or protect citizens in their investigative activities. An app with professional guidance was piloted in four police units to participate with citizens that do their own research and learn from expectations and experiences. Citizens need guidance, but more importantly expect a certain degree of reciprocity in collaborating with police in criminal investigations.

Citizen engagement in public safety is increasing rapidly. This trend, also known as responsibilisation, causes new dilemmas for (local) goverments. This article is based on a case study on a local group in the Dutch municipality Neder-Betuwe. These vigilantes arrest suspects by using extensive and professional equipment. By using the theory of normative practices this article compares the practices of the vigilantes and the local police. Their attitude to themes as safety, community values and the core values of the Dutch rule of law differs. This puts pressure on cooperation between vigilantes and police officers.

In former times, citizens themselves were responsible for ensuring and protecting their own safety. Over the years, this responsibility largely shifted to the government, partly due to the establishment of an institutionalized police force. In recent years, citizens have increasingly reestablishing themselves in domain of social security. Citizens are engaged in tasks that are traditionally seen as primarily the responsibility of the police, such as law enforcement, criminal investigation and immediate in case of emergencies.
Technology can be considered as one of the major driving forces behind this increasing contribution of citizens in the field of security. Technology makes it possible to quickly find and share information and enhances people’s ability to deal with cognitively complex tasks. In a certain way, technology democratizes police work by making the skills and tools available for every citizen.
In this article we will discuss the value of a specific form of technological support for citizens in their search for missing persons: the missing persons app ‘Sarea’. The Netherlands has a high number of missing persons and in many incidents citizens start searching themselves. Often, this citizen initiatives are uncoordinated. Therefore, an app has been developed by the police to help citizens start and coordinate their own searches for a missing person.

This article focusses on the use of information of citizens who conducted their own investigation in a criminal procedure. Three questions are important in such a situation: 1) is the prosecution of the suspect based largely or entirely on the information of the civilian?, 2) was this information obtained lawfully? and 3) is the information reliable? In this article these questions are discussed.

Over the years, the use of data and digital technology in neighbourhood watch groups for prevention and detection of crime and citizens initiatives to enhance public safety has increased due to social and technological changes of citizen participation in coproduction of safety and digitization of economy and society. This causes a transition towards a new technology regime, a shift from a ‘closed’ information and communication technology regime owned by governmental organizations towards (inter)national ‘open’ platforms, which in turn challenges the current policy regime. This transition creates new societal expectations and challenges, often with contrasting dynamics. For instance, citizens are becoming the so-called ‘eyes and ears’ for government in prevention and detection of crime in neighbourhoods, while professionals are increasingly expected to coproduce safety with citizens through new forms of prevention and detection. With the rise of data and digital technology such as platforms and applications citizens are increasingly enabled to take the lead and initiate collaboration and organize new forms of prevention and surveillance in their own neighbourhoods.
Both in literature as in public policy practice, neighbourhood prevention and crime detection in general is addressed. However, less attention is spent on the role and impact of data and digital technology. We propose this is an issue because the emerging digital technology regime requires a new conceptual view wherein citizen initiatives are no longer perceived as merely instrumental to government interventions, but are understood as coproducers of public safety in their neighbourhoods, as part of a broader societal shift in which citizens are enabled by digital technology to organize their own data environments. Based on the introduction of digital coproduction, we illustrate four case examples to explain which opportunities for safety professionals and local governments arise to create a policy regime that suits the emerging digital technology regime.

It is often assumed that digital neighbourhood watch groups lead to more emergency calls and more arrests by the police. This article revolves around the question whether or not these groups actually contribute to reducing crime in the Netherlands. It does so by looking at recent studies and the results of researchers’ own ‘realist evaluation’ of the city of Rotterdam’s policy on digital neighbourhood watch. The latter includes a reconstruction of the program theory and ten case studies with different types of groups. The reconstruction of program theory revealed two main routes to crime reduction: 1) more emergency calls and more arrests by the police and 2) more social control. Chat histories have been studied and moderators, participants, non-participants and professionals were interviewed on their perception of active mechanisms and on the efficacy of their group. None of the respondents believed their group led to an increased number of arrests, but interviews and chat histories show that crime can be reduced by means of social control. Social control by neighbours limits the opportunity for crime and disturbs criminal acts. Other studies in the Netherlands support this finding. The article closes by putting digital neighbourhood watch in a citizen’s perspective with suggestions to improve the efficacy of digital neighbourhood watch groups and the notion that for citizens, crime reduction is not the only or principal goal.

The aim of the present research was to gain insight into the topic of ‘task-related rule-breaking behavior’ (TRB) among Dutch police officers. TRB is a more refined alternative for the concept of noble cause corruption and has been defined as: police officers breaking rules or formal agreements for the purpose of acting in a manner that contributes to the lawful police task. Qualitative research has been conducted within one of the ten regional police forces in the Netherlands. Results show that TRB appears to be a relatively common phenomenon during policework. Behaviors are categorized in sixteen categories and five overarching outlines. In addition, attention is given to several important factors that could be related to TRB being distinguishable between police officers’ individual responsibility and organizational factors. To handle TRB, it is recommended to pay attention to the police officers’ approach of judging and rationalizing their own behavior, their level of knowledge, and social skills. Furthermore, organizational structure (i.e., spam of control) and police leadership may, among other factors, play an important role in encouraging TRB. Especially the way supervisors deal with police officers’ professional autonomy needs specific attention in order to reduce TRB. Autonomy needs guidance in the form of clear orders followed by feedback and coaching. Also, an active form of ethical leadership is needed. An action framework is presented that could be helpful to supervisors to judge and thereby reduce forms of TRB.

Little is known about (former) partners of 1%motorcycle club members. Social professionals working with victims of domestic violence in shelters have regular encounters with these mostly female (ex-)partners. In this exploratory contribution we wonder what is known about domestic violence amongst people with (ex-)partners of 1%motorcycle club members and the consequences of the involvement of a motorcycle club for tackling this violence. Based on thirteen semi-structured interviews with social professionals working in a shelter, external professionals and (ex-)partners, the link between domestic violence and membership of a motorcycle club could not be verified. What this research does show is that safety is the number one priority in working with these (ex-)partners. Furthermore, it shows how complex it is to assess the seriousness of potential threat coming from these 1%motorcyle clubs. Further research on domestic violence in environments associated with organised crime and the cooperation between the judiciary system and social professionals is needed to improve safety and wellbeing for this specific group.

In this article, we analyze which aspects of performance theory and the procedural justice-based model are explaining the trust of shopkeepers in the police and local government. Utilizing a survey of 156 shopkeepers and 94 semi-constructed interviews with shopkeepers, which are located at the South Shopping Boulevard in Rotterdam (The Netherlands), the study finds that shopkeepers have a relatively high trust in the police and local government. This is surprising because various attempts in the past 30 years to revive the high street by the government have failed to improve its bad image, as dwindling visitor numbers, poor turnover, limited range of retailers, empty shops and high crime and offence levels show only too plainly. The findings also highlight that ethnic minority respondents have more trust in local government than Dutch shopkeepers. The explanation therefor is sought in the dual frame of reference theory.

This contribution provides an overview of the legal and criminological research into the decision following the determination of a supervisor that the conditions of a freedom-restricting sanction are not met. It is an important decision, on the one hand because it can result in a more severe sanction than was initially imposed, on the other hand because a decision that is perceived as unfair can influence the extent to which suspects and convicts are willing to comply with conditions, and recidivism. Yet little research has been conducted into this decision. The legal safeguards with which it is accompanied are lagging behind those of the original sentencing decision. Undeserved according to penitentiary experts. The scarce empirical research shows that decision-making involves many different layers and that the actors involved have different goals, ranging from deterrence and emphasizing the credibility of the system to the successful completion of the sanction. Even in countries where regulations have been tightened considerably, the discretionary power of direct supervisors, such as employees of the working project or therapists, is still large. This raises the question to what extent the final decision maker (usually a judge) still has sufficient room to make an independent decision.