Traditionally, the mayor has an important role as a citizen’s father and as a maintainer of public order. In the context of the so-called ‘undermining’ criminality, the mayor has been increasingly empowered with new legal instruments to combat undermining criminality. Some mayors see themselves as a sheriff. However, in the Dutch Municipal Act, the mayor only has a task of maintaining the public order. How does this task relate to combating undermining criminality? What is the role of the mayor in the combat of undermining criminality? Nowadays, there is no legal basis in the Dutch Municipal Act to equip the mayor with crime-fighting duties. This article proposes to equip the mayor with a legal duty as a crime fighter.

In this article, we report on our initial findings (from the field) regarding conflict resolution among the Maroons in Suriname. After first providing some background information about the Maroons (section 2), we describe their manner of conflict resolution after a crime has taken place and we explain what justice within this context entails for them (section 3). Subsequently, we try to distil ‘the useful elements’ from the Maroons’ approach to crime, that is to say elements with which modern restorative justice, i.e. restorative justice that meets, inter alia, human rights and constitutional requirements, can be nourished and strengthened. We also discuss some of the challenges we have encountered, where the traditional legal system and the modern criminal justice system come together (section 4). Then we try to build some possible bridges between the two legal systems (section 5). The contribution concludes with providing a window on the future of the development of restorative justice in Suriname and the Netherlands.

Undermining has become a buzz-word in Dutch politics and security governance. On national and local level there is great concern about the disappearing lines between the legal and illegal world, which affects the democratic order and rule of law in the Netherlands. Hence, everything possible should be done in order to combat the creeping threat of undermining. However, what is undermining actually? And why has the concept become so popular now? In this contribution, the authors will consider those and other relevant key questions about the rise and effect of the undermining concept to provide more conceptual clarity. By critically reflecting on undermining as a speech act, that is ‘underminization’ (cf. securitization), and based on empirical research, the authors suggest that there are two discourses at work that hinder the effectivity of the concept: one is specifically focused on the drugs industry with its illegal activities and one broadens the concept into unlawful and undesired developments that interfere with societal stability. The authors conclude that the concept of undermining may mobilize at policy level, yet seems to paralyze at operational level.

Multi-national corporations are increasingly facing attention and disapproval by different actors, including authorities, public and (non-) commercial organizations. Digital globalization and especially social media as a low-cost, highly interactive and multidirectional platform shape a unique context for this rising attention. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to top-down approaches and strategies that corporations use to avoid stigmatization and sanctioning of their behaviour. Reactions to corporate harm are, however, seldom researched from a labelling perspective. As a result, corporations are not considered as objects towards whom labelling is targeted but rather as actors who hamper such processes and who, as moral entrepreneurs, influence which behaviour is labelled deviant. Based on theoretical analysis of literature and case studies, this article will discuss how the process of labelling has changed in light of the digitalized, late-modern society and consequently, how the process should be revisited to be applicable for corporate deviance. Given a diversification of moral entrepreneurs and increasingly dependency of labelling and meaning-making on the online sphere, two new forms of labelling are introduced that specifically target institutions; that is bottom-up and horizontal labelling.

In the introductory article of this special issue on ‘moral entrepreneurs’ in the 21st century, we situate different notions of moral entrepreneurship. Particularly foregrounding Howard Becker’s definition, we discuss its origins and use in subsequent research. The question that we’ve put forward in the ‘call for papers’ for this special issue is to what extent the notion is relevant in contemporary research and who is considered as ‘moral entrepreneur’. The research papers discuss ‘entrepreneurial’ practices of university ethic commissions, medical professionals, police officers and the leaders of cannabis social clubs. We conclude that the underlying rationales and discourses of moral entrepreneurs that the authors identify, reflect contemporary neoliberal ideals.

For quite some years now, crimes of ‘the powerful’ have been studied by criminologists. While researching crimes of ‘the powerful’, researchers aim to maintain and safeguard their integrity and ethics. However, there seems to be a friction between, on the one hand, ethics of the researchers themselves and on the other hand, ethics (policies) of universities. Obviously, not only do they have to justify their actions and decisions to themselves and ‘science’ as a whole, they must justify their research to ethics committees (EC’s) of universities. It could result in complex and difficult situations when researchers suspect that EC’s themselves may be instruments and products of the powerful groups they are studying. In that case, EC’s might undermine ethics and research integrity themselves. What do certain EC- ‘conditions’ look like for research ethics and to which extent do they have to be adjusted or reconsidered when criminologists are researching ‘the powerful’? The key question that will be answered in this contribution is as follows: how can criminologist (re)act ethically responsibly when confronted with (un)ethical committees? To answer this and other relevant questions, after reviewing literature, we reflect on a biographical study of a legal arms trader. We then elaborate on the ‘ethics creep’ (Haggerty, 2004) that seems to haunt social sciences nowadays.

Surveillance measures in public places such as train stations, large events or business premises are aimed at increasing security at those specific locations. They enable people to move around securely at public (high) risk locations. However, people often experience these measures as an obstacle. Too much security often results in limitations of freedom of movement and violations of privacy. Could surveillance measures be designed in such a way that they are perceived more as a ‘service’? The authors studied the variables that influence whether people experience surveillance as a service or as a hindrance. At three surveillance locations (Schiphol Airport, Hoog Catharijne shopping area and Amersfoort railway station) more than thousand visitors were surveyed. They were asked how they experienced service and security on the site. The results show that there are differences in service perception in relation to security measures at the three locations studied. They show how the tension between service and safety can be reduced and provide clues for improving security measures. The results can be used by owners of public locations, surveillance stakeholders or private companies for the optimalisation and re-design of a location, as their goal is to attract loyal visitors, who are not frustrated and are willing to use the location frequently, and who preferably speak positively about the location to others. Also the security measures themselves can be improved, both technical security measures as well as human security measures.