In 1938, Nico (or Niko) Gunzburg founded the Institute of Criminology at Ghent University.
Because he was a professor of Jewish origin, Flemish-minded, a political liberal and a freemason, he became the victim, in 1940 and in 1941, of looting by the ‘Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg für die besetzten Gebiete’. Personal books, documents, art and archives concerning his lodge ‘Marnix van Sint Aldegonde’ were stolen from his house and transported to nazi-Germany. After the Second World War, almost the entire collection was found in the Moscow-Archive and subject to restitution.

This article deals with restorative justice practices in Surinam. It is based mainly on anthropological literature and preliminary research findings of four indigenous villages in Surinam, and is part of a broader study of Indigenous and Marron communities. In these villages the age-old customary law approach to conflict remains a lively practice, especially in the rainforests where central authority has little influence. The author highlights a number of restorative aspects of indigenous (criminal) justice practices, such as the group conferencing model of the Krutu and the role of the community (rehabilitation). Other aspects are not at all restorative, such as cases of double punishment (ne bis in idem), corporal punishment and the lack of the possibility of appeal. Because the trend of opening the hinterland seems to be unstoppable, it is recommended to coordinate national law and customary law and improve cooperation between indigenous and central authority. The article gives some suggestions for reforming the Surinamese Penal Code.

This article analyzes the opinion of twenty-four Surinamese ex-convicted young men on restorative justice. The results were obtained through four focus group sessions and a concise survey form. The factors (a) type of offense, (b) seriousness of offense and (c) prevention of recurrence were discussed. The opinions are divided, but the majority is of the opinion that restorative justice can mainly work for serious and violent crimes. Fear of revenge appears to be a barrier to participation. Employment has been indicated as the key to real recovery of the offender and prevention of recidivism (and thus satisfaction for the victim). The results provide insight into the susceptibility to restorative justice among this specific group in Suriname.

Criminological research has emphasized the importance of procedural justice of authorities during encounters with citizens. Theory and prior research propose that the procedurally just treatment by the police influences, possibly via legitimacy, citizens’ willingness to cooperate with authorities in the criminal justice chain. This article tests the hypotheses of procedural justice theory using Dutch data of the European Social Survey (N=1,616). The results show an association between the procedurally just treatment of citizens by the police and cooperation with criminal justice authorities. However, this association has not been explained by the legitimacy of the police.

Convict criminology draws from personal experience of imprisonment to offer critical criminological perspectives on punishment and prisons. In this article I discuss how some of these are aligned with questions of narrative and post-colonial perspectives in criminology. I use autoethnographic vignettes to communicate the experiences of imprisonment that inform the development of convict criminology, and I explore their relationship to narrative criminology’s interest in personal stories.

This article adopts German philosopher Hans Vaihinger’s Philosophy of “as if” as a vehicle to sketch the main features of the emerging research domain of narrative victimology, as well as address some of its limitations. Vaihinger emphasizes the importance of useful untruths, i.e. things we know to be untrue, but nevertheless behave as if they are not, if that strengthens their use as instruments for us to find our way more easily in the world. This applies to our daily lives, but also to our societal institutions and the models and metaphors that underlie our approaches to (social) science. The paper argues that the narrative metaphor of the historical event is often more apt to enhance our understanding of victimological phenomena than that of the mechanism, which is the default metaphor of (social) science. The paper subsequently describes four areas of inquiry of narrative victimology: victimisation’s impact on (life) stories; narratives in the aftermath of victimization; narratives of victim’s experiences with justice processes and the coincidence and juxtaposition of the victims’ narrative with narratives of other significant parties. For all its merits however, the narrative metaphor is also a “useful untruth”, equipped with its own limitations, for instance the difficulty of language in describing first hand experiences of victims and the possibility that narrative structures will be imposed upon victim experiences.

Narrative criminology focuses on stories. It initially contrasted itself with standard approaches to interviewing. The founders of narrative criminology proposed that we understand that what the persons we investigate are telling us, as acting discursively and not as factual descriptions of events or accurate representations of their perspective. This critique I compare to previous critique on interviewing to show their overlap. Next, I critique these critiques. Finally, I propose several ways through which narratives in interviews can be enriched.

This article explores the intersection of two criminological perspectives—cultural criminology and narrative criminology. Taking inspiration from Mills and Fleetwood’s article, ‘Prepping and verstehen: A narrative criminological perspective’, where the authors contend that stories complement the pursuit of criminological verstehen, this article draws attention to other ways in which cultural criminology and narrative criminology are imbricated, taking notice of commonalities in cultural criminology’s analysis of media looping and narrative criminology’s identification of cycles of storytelling practice and lived experiences. A consideration of Donald Trump’s attempts to control narrative is used to develop an argument regarding cultural criminology’s and narrative criminology’s joint questioning of linear sequencing and mutual recognition of circulating fluidity

Sexually transgressive behavior occurs in all sections of society, including sports. That includes behavior from making sexual comments to rape. A risk factor is the culture that can prevail in sports, also known as a disruptive culture. There is normalization of deviant behavior. The top sport culture is particularly vulnerable to unacceptable behavior. In this article we will consider the phenomenon of grooming by the coach – the conscious and movement that induce the minor to engage in sexual contact. Within top sport, the opportunity for (sexually) transgressive behavior will be the determining factor. While grooming in recreational or recreational sport is often by isolating (vulnerable) children from the group, grooming can occur in top sport because of the intensity of the relationship, which is in any case of a more closed nature and can be strengthened by the strong performance-oriented top sport culture. In both cases, an alert, open environment is necessary to create a safe sports climate.

This article contains a plea for a further operationalization of the subsidiarity principle (penal law and punishment as ultimum remedium) through a maximalist restorative justice, i.e. a restorative justice that not only offers space for ‘voluntary processes’ and agreed restoration, but also for ‘compulsory procedures’ and imposed restoration. An attempt is made to make the maximalist arsenal of restorative sanctions as concrete as possible. Two examples of sanctions that are ‘constructed’ in a restorative way in this article, are restorative community service and restorative electronic home detention. This article is based on work by John Blad and Lode Walgrave that has previously appeared in Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht.

Is the concept of ‘retribution’ compatible with restorative justice? Starting from the perspective that retribution is an imperative given and that restorative justice should be a preferent option in coping with crime, the concept of retribution needs to be redesigned. Rethinking retribution needs to take into account the hypersensitive nature and complexity of modern society. Apparently incompatible interests need to be reconciled, paying tribute to the citizenship of both the victim and the perpetrator. Notwithstanding censure to be in place, implying the infliction of ‘pain’, the aim must lie in a reconstruction of civil relationships affirming the victim and the perpetrator to be part of the community. Standards applied must reflect objectivity, implying proportionate punishment, with a preference towards restorative justice because it is the more subsidiary option. Thus, retribution notwithstanding the imperative and painful nature of retribution, the execution should pursue the reconstruction of (civil) relationships.

This essay focuses on John Blad’s views on the sanction concept of restorative justice and the punishment concept of criminal law. What is the status of a restorative sanction? How does that sanction differ from imposed criminal sanctions?

This article presents findings from a longitudinal study of 81 young recidivists examined over fifteen years. By the age of 25, 50 percent had desisted for at least three years. 60 percent had had no new police contacts during the last two years. Four stages could be distinguished in the desistance process. Apart from a small number of explicit persisters, all of the young adults did consciously consider whether the benefits of their criminal activities outweighed the disadvantages. With just a few exceptions, the decision to quit was not motivated by an altruistic goal, nor by extreme fear, but mainly motivated by the feeling of being too old for criminal life and by striving for a pleasant self-esteem. It is concluded that when young adult recidivists give up crime, this must be seen as an extreme and extremely late form of maturation.

As an approach to law and justice, restorative justice focuses squarely on addressing human needs; it acknowledges the equal dignity of all parties, irrespective of their role in the harmful act; it accepts responsibilities for addressing the disadvantages or inequities that crime has bequeathed to victims and that often have contributed to offending on the part of the perpetrator; and it derives its creative potential from the shared vulnerability and reciprocal exchange of concern that occurs through respectful face-to-face encounter. Therefore restorative justice constitutes a relational justice of care.

This article outlines two points of criticism related to Christopher Marshall’s discussion of a relational justice of care. First, addressing the needs of the parties involved in a criminal justice case finds its appropriate place in the post-trial stage. In the pre-trial and trial stages, protecting the legal rights and equal treatment of suspects should take priority over caring for suspects. Secondly, if the outcome of the restorative encounter in the pre-trial stages has a bearing on the verdict of the judge, the encounter may risk to lose its authenticity. The offender may have reason to believe that a socially appropriate performance will be rewarded with less punishment.