This article offers an alternative view on litter as a sign of disorder (broken windows theory) by presenting qualitative research from the perspectives of juveniles on littering, and the various meanings they give to this behaviour. About 100 teenagers were observed in a variety of public places, such as parks and squares. A symbolic interactionist interpretation suggests that teenagers do not automatically break norms in a ‘disorderly’ environment as suggested by the broken windows theory, nor is this behaviour related to feelings of safety or lack thereof. Teenagers attach various symbolic meanings to litter and littering behaviour as these relate to their desired public identity. These results challenge the notion that litter is a reliable indicator of the experience of public safety, and calls for greater integration of symbolic interactionism within studies using the broken windows theory.

The fight against organized cannabis cultivation is an important topic within Dutch law enforcement. No longer the sole responsibility of the police, the current trend is for the police to work alongside local government, companies providing energy, housing associations and the Inland Revenue. Together they unite their strengths to deal more effectively and resolutely with the problem. Although different studies have been conducted concerning the (effectiveness of) the fight against cannabis cultivation, there is not much known regarding the way actors experience the fight from ‘within’, that is: the interactions, perceptions and transformations of agreements and premises which are enacted on the ‘molecular level’ of the cooperation. In two large Dutch cities, we have researched, on the basis of semi-structured interviews and observation, how parties implement their role within the integral fight against cannabis cultivation. The results reveal that the execution is more complex and uncontrollable than previously considered. The cooperation turns out not to be deductive, structured and ‘organized’; but rather flexible, dynamic and ‘self organizing’ in character.

This article describes and judges on the development of three ‘social-safety arrangements’ in a new developed neighbourhood in the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Based on different research methods, three key issues are defined: youngsters hanging around on the streets annoying residents and little children, families showing anti-social behaviour, and youngsters showing signs of criminal behaviour. Together with all responsible ‘players on the pitch’ the current policies were discussed and expanded with additional strategies. The development of these arrangements consists of four stages: an objective diagnosis of the area, a more detailed analysis to determine the most urgent social safety issues, determining all actors involved and their role in the system, and, finally, a broad discussion with all actors to determine shortcomings in the current policies and interventions. Social safety arrangements can best be regarded a research-based policy instrument that provides detailed insight in the roles and positions of all actors and helps policymakers translate this knowledge into local policies.

In this article we want to show how different actors (amongst whom residents, professional safety-functionaries and street youth) view the safety situation in Rotterdam’s problematic neighbourhood ‘the Old West’ in very different ways and start from very different parameters. We conclude that the one-dimensional image of an unsafe neighbourhood that emerges from the city’s official, quantitative measurement instrument, the so-called ‘Safety Index’ (Veiligheidsindex), does not do justice to the diversity of opinions and visions of the different actors in the neighbourhood and is thus unsuited as the political ‘compass’ for local safety policy it was intended for. This diversity comes much better to the surface in the qualitative, ethnographic research on which this article is based. Such research enables us first to better understand safety as a local phenomenon and secondly offers more concrete points of departure for policy.

Changing public safety problems as well as an increasing societal demand for public safety made way for new policy approaches. During the 1990s, the so called ‘integral safety approach’ was introduced in the Netherlands. This approach manifested itself mainly on the municipal level where the mayor is being held responsible for managing public safety and order. The central question raised in this article is: what are the consequences of an integral approach to public safety problems for the mayor when managing local order and public safety? We will demonstrate that ‘integrality’ is no clear cut concept. Careful inspection of the concept learns that it has multiple meanings. Of these various meanings, especially the ambition to address public safety problems by means of ‘new alliances’ characterized the actual implementation of integral policies. However, working together within these new alliances uniting various more or less independent actors from both the public and private sector, seemed to be hampered by a lack of coordination and control. In that sense, the introduction of the integral approach had consequences for steering and control of public safety policies. These consequences have to be addressed, especially by the mayor who is accountable for local order and safety. The mayor had attributed to him – first in practice, soon by law as well – the role of director of public safety policy on the municipal level. However, as we will demonstrate in this article, the mayor lacks an important trait needed for effective directorship: decisive powers. Therefore the mayor is not able to realize effective cooperation between partners within the new alliances of the integral approach to public safety problems. As a potential solution, we will describe the characteristics of a ‘model of anticipation’ granting the mayor a certain level of decisive powers to be used as an ultimum remedium.

Restorative justice focuses on doing justice after the occurrence of an offence. It gives priority to deliberative encounters as the best way of achieving restoration. The ambition of the maximalist option of restorative justice is to modify the punitive apriorism in criminal justice into a restorative apriorism. One of the challenges is to unravel the socio-ethical and political intuitions that orient the option for restorative justice. Restorative justice is first of all an option based on socio-ethical considerations: aiming at restoration instead of accepting the punitive premise, and giving full space for deliberation processes among stakeholders instead of imposing a top down decision procedure. These social ethical grounds of restorative justice have a potential contribution to improving the quality of our democracies.

This article gives a complete and detailed overview of research evaluations and outcomes of restorative justice projects in the Netherlands over the past decades. It involves developments where clearly restorative justice inspiration was visible. The author describes restorative practices with juveniles and the so-called project ‘Herstelbemiddeling’ (restorative mediation) that started in the nineties. Most evaluations had positive outcomes, but nevertheless there was no continuation from the political side. The author also examines the introduction of the country wide ‘victim-offender conversations’ which are carried out by the national victim support organization. Although this choice is justified because of the vulnerability of some victims and the chance of revictimisation, the author questions if victim organizations can really - in the best interests of the victims – turn away from problems related to the (hardened) treatment of offenders. Victim-offender conversations are to be respected and to be continued, but they cannot be seen as a restorative justice practice.

In a column a journal editor or an author expresses his or her opinion on a particular subject.

In this article, the author evaluates whether the development of restorative justice in Belgium over the past ten years offers an opportunity to ‘celebrate’, as the Journal for Restorative Justice does. Developments in practice show that mediation is available at all stages of the judicial procedure for adult offenders and mediation and conferencing are available according to youth law. Research has been carried out on various topics, covering a variety of practices. Furthermore, it has elaborated the concept of restorative justice, inspired innovative practices and influenced policy-making. Belgium seems to be peculiar in the relation between practice, research and policy, which tend to influence one another. Compared to the Netherlands, Belgium does have more reasons to celebrate the development of restorative justice.

Hans Boutellier is giving a panoramic overview of important changes in society. As worked out in his recent book De improvisatiemaatschappij (The improvisation society) he describes that society has evaluated into a network society in which social ordering is primarily a matter of self-organizing mechanisms. The aim for self-ordering would be a possibility for a further growth of restorative practices, but at the same time we are dealing with a penal-populist culture. In that culture citizenship, dialogue and self-ordering are suspect and – paradoxically – safety is expected to be delivered only by the state.

This contribution aims to understand the right things when doing justice. Restorative justice is an approach to crime that, properly pursued, focuses not merely on the lawbreaking behaviour of the offender but also on the effect of that behaviour on victims and communities. Restorative justice seeks accountability on the part of offenders in such a way that the harm done can be addressed and repaired to the extent possible. Restorative justice allows the parties to a crime to participate directly and voluntarily in considering the harm and fashioning a resolution that addresses that harm. It is also important that the right thing about restorative justice and about democracy be understood. Crucial is respectful dialogue during which people who disagree listen to one another, speak from the heart and mind, identify common values, recognize the importance of the others, and work toward a common solution.