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.

David Brotherton – professor of Sociology at John Jay College of the City University of New York – was named Critical Criminologist of the year in 2011 and is known for his work on the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation and his research on Dominican deportees. By using excerpts of a lengthy interview with Brotherton, a personal and detailed account is presented which sheds light on the roots of his work, his (scientific) influences and especially his highly engaged methods of critical ethnography.

This column reacts to the use of the word ‘Djuka’ (spelled variously) for the Suriname Maroons. This word, although derived from the perfectly respectable tribal name of Ndyuka, is widely considered today as a term of abuse and interpreted to mean ‘shit of the Jews’. It has therefore become unusable in serious literature.

This article discusses David van Reybrouck’s history of Congo. The focus is on violence and there is special attention for the period of the Congo Free State, 1885-1908, under king Leopold. A comparison is made between Van Reybrouck’s views and those of Adam Hochchild. It is concluded that the former passes a milder judgment on the actions of Leopold’s troops than the latter, while he also presents a more diversified account. Both authors, however, reject the label of genocide for Leopold’s ‘rubber terror’. The article concludes with some reflections on the concept of genocide, proposing to replace it with organized murder.