Zoekresultaat: 28 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Rubriek Discussion x
Discussie

Alle dieren tellen mee!

Over non-speciesisme in de criminologie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden speciesism, animal rights, animal cruelty
Auteurs Dr. Janine Janssen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Criminology traditionally focuses on the human experience. However, several criminologists have seriously criticized this anthropocentric perspective. In their view from a criminological perspective humans and other than human animals should be given equal attention. Although they advocate a non-speciesist criminology, they are not trying to fundamentally change criminology as we know it. Instead, their appeal is to not consider other than human creatures as passive objects and solely from the perspective of their usefulness for humans. Yet, this objective poses substantial methodological challenges to criminologists.


Dr. Janine Janssen
Dr. J.H.L.J. Janssen is hoofd onderzoek van het Landelijk Expertise Centrum Eer Gerelateerd Geweld (LEC EGG) van de nationale politie, lector Veiligheid in afhankelijkheidsrelaties aan Avans Hogeschool en lid van de Commissie Kennis en Onderzoek van de Politieonderwijsraad.
Discussie

Het risico van een coördinator: geen beroep te hebben

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 2 2018
Auteurs Hedda van Lieshout, Jan van Lieshout en Rob van Pagée
Auteursinformatie

Hedda van Lieshout
Hedda van Lieshout is bestuurder van de landelijke stichting Eigen Kracht Centrale; www.eigen-kracht.nl.

Jan van Lieshout
Jan van Lieshout is ideoloog en oprichter van de stichting Eigen Kracht Centrale; www.eigen-kracht.nl.

Rob van Pagée
Rob van Pagée is ideoloog en oprichter van de stichting Eigen Kracht Centrale; www.eigen-kracht.nl.

Alrik de Haas
Alrik de Haas is strafrechtadvocaat bij OMVR Advocaten in Harderwijk. Hij is hoofddocent Strafrecht bij de Beroepsopleiding Advocaten. Alrik de Haas is medeoprichter en bestuurslid van de kerngroep Stichting MENS en Strafrecht en lid van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Strafrechtadvocaten (NVSA).

Annet Last-Louw
Annet Last-Louw is gecertificeerd mediator in Strafrecht (tevens geregistreerd als MfN Mediator).

Simon Groen
Simon Groen is coach en trainer geweldloze communicatie. Hij verzorgde seminars over lichaamstaal bij ‘DenkProducties’, sprak regelmatig op de radio over communicatie en coachte politici en TED-sprekers in hun presentatievaardigheden. Naast zijn trainingen is Simon Groen actief als comedy-acteur. Samen met zijn broer maakt hij komische filmpjes voor het tv-programma ‘Het Klokhuis’. www.simongroen.nl
Diversen

Lokale oplossingen voor problemen in asielopvang: de ‘vluchtelingencrisis’ als window of opportunity

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden asylum reception, local turn, Plan Einstein, experimental governance
Auteurs dr. Karin Geuijen, dr. Rianne Dekker en dr. Caroline Oliver
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    During the recent ‘refugee crisis’, governments have been confronted with various problems concerning asylum reception. In several locations in the Netherlands, as well as elsewhere in Europe and beyond, new local forms of experimenting around the issue of asylum reception have begun. One example is Utrecht’s ‘Plan Einstein’. In Overvecht, a district of the city, an office building has been converted into an asylum shelter, where 400 asylum seekers live together with 38 non-refugee youngsters from Utrecht. The Centre runs courses and activities, offered to both asylum seekers (including those who do not yet have a residence status) and local residents. Employing the concepts of ‘multilevel governance’ and ‘experimental governance’, this article indicates why this initiative was able to be realized at this location and at this time.


dr. Karin Geuijen
Dr. Karin Geuijen is als universitair docent verbonden aan het departement bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschap, Universiteit Utrecht. E-mail: k.geuijen@uu.nl.

dr. Rianne Dekker
Dr. Rianne Dekker is als universitair docent verbonden aan het departement bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschap, Universiteit Utrecht. E-mail: r.dekker1@uu.nl.

dr. Caroline Oliver
Dr. Caroline Oliver is senior lecturer bij het department of social sciences,University of Roehampton, Londen. E-mail: caroline.oliver@roehampton.ac.uk.
Diversen

Mainstreaming van integratiebeleid: een beleidsreactie op superdiversiteit?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden immigrant integration governance, mainstreaming, superdiversity, Europe
Auteurs Ilona van Breugel Msc en Dr. Peter Scholten
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper links the discussion on superdiversity and its call for multidimensional shifts in migration patterns and the ‘diversification of diversity’ this has led to, to the development of immigrant integration policies that tend to focus on traditional migrant groups. Considered from the superdiversity perspective these groups are an simplification of the diversity within and between the migrant population. Furthermore, the diversification of the society as a whole calls into question who should be targeted for immigrant integration policies at all, and in what direction they should point, in a society that has changed itself as a consequence of immigration (Crul, 2016). How do these questions speak to the world of immigrant integration policy making? This paper links this question to the trend of ‘mainstreaming’ in immigrant integration governance. Across Europe traditional immigrant integration policies have been replaced by universal policies, generic policies, targeted at the entire population, such as broad city-citizenship approaches or incorporating former immigrant integration policies in generic educational or community policies. This paper discusses material from different European cases between 2000-2014 to explore whether this broad, mainstreaming approach can be considered a policy-answer to the questions and challenges the superdiversity discussion raises for immigrant integration policies.


Ilona van Breugel Msc
Ilona van Breugel, Msc, is PhD student aan de afdeling Bestuurskunde en Sociologie aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Haar huidige onderzoek richt zich op lokaal integratiebeleid en de constructie van probleemdefinities en doelgroepen binnen dit beleid. Daarnaast is zij werkzaam als docent en coördinator binnen de master ‘Governance of Migration and Diversity’ (LDE).

Dr. Peter Scholten
Dr. Peter Scholten is universitair hoofddocent Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Tevens is hij directeur van het onderzoeksnetwerk IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe) en editor-in-chief van het tijdschrift Comparative Migration Studies. Hij publiceert met name over thema’s als de relatie tussen kennis en beleid, vergelijkende beleidsstudies, multi-level governance en intercultureel beleid. Voor meer informatie, zie www.peterscholten.eu.
Diversen

Superdiversiteit als duizelingwekkend perspectief – maar niet onproblematisch

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden superdiversity, globalization, network society, integration
Auteurs Prof. dr. Hans Boutellier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The ‘condition of superdiversity’ creates a dazzling perspective that matches the image of a networking society without unambiguous collective entities. Society consists of a caleidoscopic set of identities, relationships, languages and gods in a context of permeable geographic areas. That brings many problems, but the country that is aware of this diversity does have ultimately the best papers for the future.


Prof. dr. Hans Boutellier
Prof. dr. Hans Boutellier is wetenschappelijk directeur van het Verwey-Jonker Instituut; van 2003 tot 2014 was hij algemeen directeur. Vanuit deze functie is hij eerste woordvoerder van het Kennisplatform Integratie & Samenleving (KIS). Sinds april 2016 is hij deeltijd hoogleraar Veiligheid & Veerkracht aan de Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Diversen

What about the mainstream?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden superdiversity, mainstream policy, culturalism, identity, integration
Auteurs prof. dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Advocates of superdiversity have a potential blind spot for differences in symbolic power that affect integration. Thus, they quickly ignore class inequalities and racism. But the main point of criticism is that superdiversity neglects the mainstream, the dominant ways of thinking and doing in a society. The majority of the Netherlands has become more and more culturally homogenous: after a long time of cultural polarization (the long decade of the sixties), the majority has taken over consensually libertarian ideals. The implication of this is that cultural diversity is experienced as a growing problem. Citizens, including migrants, must show that they feel connected with the Netherlands.


prof. dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak
Prof. dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak is faculteitshoogleraar sociologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Duyvendak studeerde sociologie en filosofie aan Universiteit Groningen en in Parijs. Hij deed onder meer onderzoek naar nieuwe sociale bewegingen, de emancipatie van minderheidsgroepen, naar de herstructurering van de verzorgingsstaat, nativisme en ‘belonging’.
Diversen

(Super)diversiteit en onveiligheidsgevoelens

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden ethnic diversity, super diversity, fear of crime
Auteurs dr. Erik Snel en Iris Glas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Contemporary cities are increasingly characterised by ‘super diversity’. As Putnam’s thesis about the negative social consequences of ethnic diversity is correct, we may assume that growing diversity also negatively affects crime and fear of crime in cities. After all: the more diversity, the less social cohesion and the less collective efficacy, ultimately resulting in higher crime rates. More diversity also implies less (public) familiarity in neighbourhoods and more fear of crime. On the other hand, some qualitative studies show that particularly residents of relatively homogeneous districts perceive migrants as threatening. Migrants are seen as less threatening when neighbourhood residents are familiarized with ‘the other’ and when there are more interethnic contacts. Various foreign and Dutch studies show an independent effect of ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood on fear of crime. However, this effect disappears when other resident characteristics are included into the analysis. Residents of ethnically diverse and deprived districts are generally less satisfied with their neighbourhood, have less trust in the government and are more often victimized. Precisely these perceptions and experiences explain why they more often feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.


dr. Erik Snel
Dr. Erik Snel is als universitair docent en onderzoeker verbonden aan het Department of Public Administration and Sociology (DPAS) van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Iris Glas
Iris Glas promoveert in de sociologie en is verbonden aan het Department of Public Administration and Sociology (DPAS) van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Discussie

Access_open Positief veiligheidsbeleid ook mogelijk met oorlogstaal?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden role models, responsivity, gang prevention, desistance, applied science
Auteurs dr. Jan Dirk de Jong
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    How could positive security policies take shape? On what kind of empirical research should these policies be based? And what sort of concepts would we need for this development? If the starting point is to understand safety as a positive notion, it seems wise to avoid the terms of war that are prevailing in current policy programs on security and public safety (fighting, frontline and city-marines). On the other hand some type of decisive jargon might be unavoidable when one sets out to have an actual impact on youth crime policies and policy makers. Is it possible to keep using some type of military terminology in research benefitting the development of positive security policies and still emphasize a positive composition? This dilemma has arisen in recent research activities on positive, street-oriented role models in response to Dutch problematic youth groups and youth at risk. De Jong argues that with the sensitizing concept of the ‘liaison officer’ it might be possible to encourage a positive change through applied social science.


dr. Jan Dirk de Jong
Dr. Jan Dirk de Jong is lector Aanpak Jeugdcriminaliteit, Cluster Social Work & Toegepaste Psychologie aan de Hogeschool Leiden, en wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de sectie Criminologie, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Discussie

Access_open Positieve criminologie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden securitas, rule of law, Polizeiwissenschaft, politeia, democracy
Auteurs prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Positive security is a very promising development in criminology. The ‘movement’ reconnects the current debate on crime with the origins of ancient Greek thinking on the positive nature of politeia, policy and policing. Securitas - providing safety and security for the common good - has a long and rich tradition. Good governance is about many things, but foremost about providing security in society. Polizeiwissenschaft in 18th and 19th century Prussia made a distinction between Wohlfahrt- and Sicherheitspolizei.
    The latter is outright dangerous because security becomes equated with negative connotations: the other, the enemies of the state, the drug war and more recently the war in terror. In times like these the positive qualities of securitas become inflated. Human rights, privacy and the rule of law are no longer viewed in positive terms. Therefore I advocate the positive security movement. But the author is worried about two things. Firstly, the current Zeitgeist which is charged with xenophobia and war like languages. And, secondly the fact that the ‘movement’ is limited to a few rebels with a cause. The mainstream of criminology is not really interested in reconnecting with the philosophical positive roots of securitas. Mainstream criminology fosters the status quo and is financially too depended on the state to actually follow the new heroes of positivity. The only way out is to develop a following but this requires academics to actually take a stand.


prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom
Prof. dr. Bob Hoogenboom is hoogleraar fraude en regulering aan de Nyenrode Business Universiteit.
Discussie

Het episodisch geheugen en getuigenverhoor: wat moeten politieverhoorders hiervan weten?

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden Episodic memory, Interviewing witnesses, Quality interviews, Police practice
Auteurs Drs. Imke Rispens en Adri van Amelsvoort
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Last year the article ‘Episodic memory and interviewing witnesses. What do police interviewers know about this topic?’ (Odinot, Boon & Wolters, 2015, TvC, 57(3), 279-299) was published in this journal. The article describes a study that explored the knowledge of police interviewers about episodic memory. The researchers concluded that police interviewers had insufficient knowledge of episodic memory and that this was related to the lack of psychological terms in the manual of the curriculum of police training. In this article we describe the lack of scientific consensus about episodic memory and the consequences of this for doing research with lists with theses about this subject. Differences between interviewing witnesses and suspects will be discussed. We also question whether it is necessary that police interviewers have thorough knowledge of episodic memory. More important is what knowledge does police need when doing interviews and how are these conducted? Some factors have a negative impact on the quality of those interviews, so we end up with some recommendations for improving the quality of interviews in police practice.


Drs. Imke Rispens
Drs. I.W. Rispens is recherchepsycholoog en als docent en gedragswetenschapper werkzaam bij de Politieacademie.

Adri van Amelsvoort
A.G. van Amelsvoort is freelance senior adviseur en docent. Hij was daarvoor hoofdinspecteur van politie in de functie van teamleider en kennismakelaar bij de Politieacademie. Hij is redacteur van de recherche-onderwerpen in de digitale kennisbank van Stapel & De Koning.

Dr. Geralda Odinot
Dr. G. Odinot is wetenschappelijk onderzoeker en interviewtrainer bij How2Ask.

Drs. Roel Boon
Drs. R. Boon MCI is verhoorspecialist bij de Nationale Politie en wetenschappelijk onderzoeker bij de Politieacademie.

Antonietta Pinkster
Antonietta Pinkster is MfN-register mediator en advocaat, en bestuurslid van de Vereniging van mediators in strafzaken (VMSZ).
Discussie

UNGASS 2016: in de Weense houdgreep

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden UNGASS, drug policy, war on drugs, harm reduction
Auteurs Pien Metaal MA
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution aims to discuss the main outcomes of the recent UNGASS (United Nations General Assembly Special Session) on Drugs that took place in New York from 19 to 21 April 2016. Based on my own participation in the preparatory discussions and political negotiations as civil society representative (through the work of NGO Transnational Institute), I argue that political divisions and entrenched institutional dynamics have transformed what could have been the beginning of the end of the war on drugs into a wasted opportunity for changing the status quo of the present world regime regarding the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs. Despite high initial expectations after several governments expressed a clear concern about the effects of purely repressive policies, and the UN decision to organize the session 3 years earlier than planned, very soon it was clear that the session would not imply real changes in the current policies. The agenda setting was non-transparent and controlled by the most conservative factions and countries, largely excluding the views from NGO’s and academics in the final adopted resolution. The final document poorly reflects the rich discussions and developments that are taking place in many countries of the world, particularly the debates and policy developments in ‘the Americas’. A positive note is that the unchanged international UN conventions on drugs can hardly cope with developments taking place on cannabis policies in countries such as Canada, Uruguay, United States or Jamaica. Also other countries are more and more prepared to push for change on other essential questions, including the application of death penalty for drug offences, the access to controlled medicines, or the explicit application of ‘harm reduction’ approaches.


Pien Metaal MA
Pien Metaal, MA, is programmacoördinator van het Drugs & Democracy programma van het Transnational Institute (TNI), waar ze werkzaam is sinds 2002. Ze heeft veel artikelen, rapporten en bijdragen voor boeken geschreven over drugsbeleid in Latijns Amerika sinds 1996.
Discussie

Veranderingen in de visie op druggebruik – van een strafrechtelijk naar een gezondheidsparadigma

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden drug policy, paradigms, criminalisation, harm reduction, health problem
Auteurs drs. Franz Trautmann
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Various studies show that the views on the drug problem and appropriate policy responses have undergone profound changes from the 1960s onward. This article is analysing one of these changes, the decriminalisation of drug use, reflecting a fundamental change of view: understanding drug use as a health issue and not as crime. A useful heuristic to understand this type of change is Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm concept. He sees a paradigm as a set of beliefs that are shared by a scientific community and accepted by a wider community. A paradigm change is therefore a socio-psychological process rather than rooted in new scientific or research facts.
    The author analyses the change from the dominance of a crime to the dominance of a health paradigm reflecting its social-historic context, starting with the widely shared concerns about substance use related health problems in the 20th century. These concerns translated into two different views on the essence of these problems, a crime and a health paradigm. The first served as fundament of the international drug control efforts, resulting in the still governing drug prohibition. Yet, the health paradigm was also of influence from the start and gradually gained weight. From the 1970s onwards the health paradigm became more important as part of a wider reform movement. It started in the Netherlands and the UK as bottom-up process criticising criminalising the users of illicit drugs as inappropriate, detrimental for their health and inhumane. The health paradigm was seen as more appropriate.
    The author reflects on the benefits and disadvantages of the health paradigm. Its primary benefit is that it helps to understand the health problems related to drug use. A key disadvantage is its close relationship with the disease paradigm. The latter fits well with the generally negative view on drugs as dangerous or evil. It is encompassing the risk of ‘pathologising’ all forms of drug use and denying phenomena of unproblematic use for, among other things, recreational or spiritual purposes. Like the crime paradigm it can serve for control purposes. The drug user remains subject of control or disciplining policies and is not in charge of his/her own life. An additional problematic issue is that ‘softening’ the approach towards the users seems to be mirrored by a harder, more punitive approach to the producers and sellers of the substances, which are seen as villains, making available the drugs which deserve harsh punishment for ‘devastating’ the lives of users.
    The author concludes with a short discussion of the well-being paradigm as possible alternative for the health paradigm. It covers a broader spectrum than the health paradigm and helps to grasp the negative impact of (problem) drug use, reducing well-being, but is also useful in understanding the positive sides, enhancing well-being.


drs. Franz Trautmann
Drs. Franz Trautmann was Senior Drug Policy Advisor bij het Trimbos-instituut in Nederland. Hij werkte meer dan tien jaar aan harm reduction-programma’s in Amsterdam en leidde sinds 1990 tal van nationale en internationale projecten rond de ontwikkeling van preventie, behandeling en harm reduction-programma’s in verschillende landen en kwalitatief, praktijkgericht onderzoek (Rapid Assessment and Response). De laatste vijftien jaar legde hij zich tevens toe op onderzoek naar het functioneren van de internationale drugsmarkt en naar de beleidsrespons daarop. Enkele weken na het aanleveren van de laatste versie van zijn bijdrage, op 11 juni 2016, overleed hij geheel onverwacht.

Jacques Claessen
Jacques Claessen is universitair docent straf(proces)recht bij de vakgroep strafrecht en criminologie van de Universiteit Maastricht en rechter-plaatsvervanger bij de Rechtbank Limburg. Daarnaast is hij redacteur van dit tijdschrift. Van zijn hand verscheen onder meer Vergeving in het strafrecht via de implementatie van herstelbemiddeling, Wolf Legal Publishers (2015). In 2012 ontving hij de Herman Bianchi herstelrecht-prijs.

Dr. Ben Vollaard
Dr. B.A. Vollaard is universitair docent economie aan de Universiteit Tilburg.
Discussie

Satire en politiek incorrecte taal: de premie op taboe-doorbreken

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden satire, taboo, political correctness, free speech, the right to insult
Auteurs Dr. Bas van Stokkom
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This essay argues that the breaking of taboos is an effective means to increase one’s definition-power and discredit the establishment. But rhetorical warfare and satire may also turn into its opposite: strengthening fanaticism. First, the author discusses the controversy surrounding the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo and the militant pleas for maximum artistic freedom, articulated by Salman Rushdie and others. In the second part of this essay the author argues that advocates of an inviolable right to freedom of expression, including the right to insult, may create their own taboos. Within the tabloid press and the outrage industry this ‘right’ gets more aggressive functions. Finally, some ambiguities about political correctness and the racism-taboo are discussed.


Dr. Bas van Stokkom
Dr. Bas van Stokkom is verbonden aan de vaksectie Strafrecht & Criminologie van de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
Discussie

Cultuur op den duur

Een reactie op Bovenkerk en Fokkema

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2015
Auteurs Dr. Frank van Gemert
Auteursinformatie

Dr. Frank van Gemert
Dr. F.H.M. van Gemert is universitair docent bij de sectie criminologie van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Toont 1 - 20 van 28 gevonden teksten
« 1
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment drie verschillende filters: tijdschrift, rubriek en jaar.