For the past few weeks, young Muslims from Belgium and the Netherlands leaving for Syria to join the armed struggle against the Assad regime have been dominating the local news. This is especially remarkable in light of the fact that it would appear that, until very recently, jihadists from Belgium and the Netherlands were far and few between. The armed struggle is a topic that is widely discussed among young Muslims on social media such as Facebook. During the research on which this article is based, we conducted an analysis of conversations between young Muslims on Facebook and held interviews with a number of them. The key question was: why is it that so many young people use social media to profess their willingness to sacrifice their lives in armed struggle while at the same time most of them are not prepared to put action to their words? Despite all the media reports, the fact remains that of the large number of young Muslims who are potentially ready to go into battle, the vast majority prefer to stay at home for the time being. When we confronted the participants in these discussions with this inconsistency, they offered a number of reasons and considerations as to why martyrdom was not yet granted to them. The way in which these considerations shape their lives and the role played by their religious convictions form the subject of this article.

Dutch law solely recognizes civil marriage. According to law, religious marriages can only take place after these civil marriages. Over the last years there have been several indications of rising numbers of ‘informal marriages’ which conflict with the law. These informal marriages were presupposed to take place primarily in Muslim circles. Amongst politicians and media the worries were expressed that these marriages pointed to an aversion with regard to the state of law and to radicalization of the young people involved. They were also seen as a risk to the security of society. In this explorative study we did not find any evidence for this securitisation link.

Spiritual care is connected with one’s identity and is linked to the religious or worldview background of the detainee. The spiritual caregiver’s religious or worldview serves the question of care. This care does not have any ‘care targets’; the basic characteristics for this care are availability and presence. The positive effect of his or her efforts on the well-being of the detainee and his contribution to a humanitarian penal system, resocialization in general, and maintenance of order have already been proven. Despite the legal protection spiritual care cannot escape the discussion on the role of religion and worldview in a strongly secularized society. This article suggests that spiritual care weathers this questioning.

In contrast to the societal debate, the topic of religion and crime is only scarcely present in contemporary criminological research. A special issue on this theme hence seemed very relevant. Even though the editors launched an open call, the submitted proposals were almost always related to Islam. In this introduction we therefore reflect on questions and themes that, in our opinion, should be included in this special issue on religion and crime. First, we give a short overview of Belgian, Dutch and American research on the missing theme of sexual abuse in the church. Second, we discuss the complex concept of ‘religion’. Third, we assess the complex relationship between religion and crime and reflect on the question of whether and when religion leads to more or, on the contrary, less crime. We end this introduction with a brief overview of the selected contributions for this special issue.

Some ten years ago, victim-offender mediation was introduced for the first time in EU-legislation through article 10 of the 2001 framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. In 2012 this framework decision was replaced by a more extensive directive establishing minimum standards for victims of crime. This article examines the position of restorative justice in this new legal instrument. The outcome is mixed. The emphasis on safeguards in case restorative justice is applied is a positive move towards good practices, but it is disappointing that a right to access restorative justice services was not adopted.

The diversity of institutional contexts within which restorative justice has been implemented worldwide has raised the question whether this aspect may have an influence on the experience of victims of crime. Some are of the opinion that certain institutional settings (such as probation) could relegate victims, once more, to a secondary place. This article discusses the results of a two-year research project (2011-2012) that addresses this question. One single questionnaire was administrated in three different countries (Netherlands, Austria and Finland) whose mediation programmes differ in terms of the institutional setting in which mediation is implemented. Our findings suggest that the institutional context does not matter for victims’ levels of satisfaction, but it does in terms of victims’ expectations and experiences.

Measures to combat international crime include customer identity controls by banks and repressive measures against informal money transfer systems. While there is debate surrounding the latter strategy, customer identity controls are largely taken for granted in the Netherlands. The author argues that these controls can negatively affect migrants. Moreover, exclusion of migrants from regulated banking systems has development implications. Phone-based remittances, that are linked to the regulated banking system, could serve as an alternative for informal transfer systems. Too stringent identity controls in host countries seem to prevent this however. The author recommends that controls focus on the amount being transferred, rather than on the person making the transfer.

Immigration detention is formally not a punishment, but governments do seem to use it to deter irregular migrants from staying in the territory. This study explores whether and how practices of immigration detention in the Netherlands affect detainees’ decision-making processes regarding return and result in ‘specific deterrence’. 81 unauthorized irregular migrants were interviewed in immigration detention and their casefiles were examined. We find evidence for a limited deterrence effect: a minority of the respondents indeed wanted to return to their countries of origin in order to end their (repeated) stay in immigration detention. For some respondents the detention experience contributed to a desire to migrate from the Netherlands to a different European country. We go into the relevance of these findings for the continuing societal debate on the use of immigration detention.

This article reflects on some of the qualities and strengths, as well as some potential weaknesses, of a research methodology used to study ‘hard-to-reach’ groups, such as the undocumented. This approach, known as the PEER (Participatory Ethnographic Evaluation and Research) approach, is introduced in terms of its key elements of trust, anonymity, in-depth data and flexibility. Its suitability for sensitive, or ‘liminal’ research issues, involving groups of vulnerable informants, is explained. The method is based on relations of trust, which are maintained through anonymity in data collection, and extend from social researchers to informants, through the intermediation of trained community-based peer researchers. It is they who interview others in their own social networks; since trust is the key ingredient in making this ethically-informed methodology work well, trust must be invested also in the peer researchers, who form part of the research team.

On the basis of article 1F Refugee Convention alleged perpetrators of serious crimes can be excluded from refugee protection. Under certain circumstances this exclusion can be regarded a unique type of contemporary banishment and branding. The rationale to exclude is primarily motivated by moral arguments, rather than security related arguments. In case Dutch government cannot deport the excluded persons, the exclusion is not limited to a certain place but (de facto) universal in nature. When the banished alleged perpetrators are declared undesirable aliens they are ‘branded’ as actual perpetrators.

The current phase in which Dutch government increasingly criminalizes the illegal residence of migrants is simultaneously characterized by decreasing numbers of illegal migrants in this country. In the process of crimmigration, some newly developed policies indirectly influence daily lives of specific groups of illegal migrants while other policies and laws more directly try to hinder illegal stay. These policies that aim to exclude and ban illegal migrants are continued even though they are increasingly criticized by academics and divergent (inter)national actors. These policies and laws can be contradictory, sometimes conflict with international treaties, and lead to unforeseen and undesirable outcomes in which human dignity is challenged.