In this review-essay, two books by criminologist Lois Presser are discussed: Why We Harm (2013) and Inside Story: How Narratives Drive Mass Harm (2018). In these books the author develops a general theory of harmful action, in particular collective and massive forms of harmful action that are often related to state institutions and large companies. Presser shows that all kinds of stories, scripts and ideologies may justify, support, cover up or deny harmful action. In her publications, cultural sociology, critical criminology and discourse analysis are intimately intertwined.

This article critically examines the prospects of restorative justice in Brussels from the perspective of urban youth work. The insights issue from action research on the topic of ‘radicalisation’. The authors develop two arguments. The first tempers restorative optimism. It shows how restorative interventions are not necessarily the most adequate response to tensions and conflicts in urban settings. The second argument points out that resistance from urban youth workers regarding the implementation of restorative interventions should not be seen as a regrettable obstacle for academics who are eager to experiment with these interventions. Such a resistance can lead to new insights and fresh opportunities to radically rethink Restorative Justice. One of the ideas that the article brings to the surface comes down to this. In a city like Brussels, characterised by superdiversity, and clearly marked by social inequalities, academic researchers only gain credibility in initiating restorative interventions if they undeniably denounce these inequalities and fully express their engagement for social justice.

This contribution examines shareholder capitalism and shareholder idealism. It is also argued that excessive rewards – often a result of shareholder capitalism – fuel fraud. Supervisory directors and shareholders should therefore act as a counterforce and fulfil a corrective role.

In this article the ways in which philosophers have thought about greed are discussed. From antiquity until the Renaissance greed was considered to be a sin. This immoderate desire had to be stopped because it constitutes a threat to the wellbeing of both an individual and society as a whole. This changed since the beginning of the modern era, when a more positive attitude towards this excessive desire arose. The new opinion was: private vices lead to public benefits, and thus the normalization of an excess came about. Greed no longer was considered to be a sin or vice, but instead to be a harmless passion that had a good effect on the welfare of society. The financial crisis of 2008 may have induced some doubts concerning the idea that greed is good, but a real change in opinion has not yet occurred.

This article discusses the problem of excessive drug use from a historical perspective. Cultural ambivalence towards excessive use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs has roots going back into the seventeenth century. A case study is presented of the introduction and adaptation of tobacco in the Dutch republic. Dutch national and colonial drug regulation is discussed. It is concluded that regulations have been primarily motivated by anxieties about excessive behaviour among the labouring classes, endangering public order, and non-white users in the colonies. This has led to criminalization of excessive behaviour, and to the creation of a criminal underground economy.

The lifeblood of contemporary consumer capitalism is ever-growing and accelerating human needs for new consumer goods and services. Needs that remain unsatisfied on the one hand but defy the carrying capacity of planet Earth on the other. Anything but a win-win situation. Although excess harms, the infrastructure of consumption pays full service to perpetuate and cultivate the ‘more and faster’ orientation of today’s consumers. It is believed that we can cope with excess by taking efficiency measures and paying attention to recycling and refurbishing. This article, however, points out that there is need to rethink consumption and reconsider prevalent orientations dedicated to excess consumption more fundamentally.

Sexualized graffiti has emerged on walls in Brussels since the beginning of 2013, generating fierce debates. Perceived as street art and a welcome challenge to heteropatriarchy by some and as obscenity and vulgarity by others, these pieces highlight the inherently contested character of public spaces. The controversies around the presence of these paintings in public space relate to what in the literature has become known as moral geographies, that is, the spatial aspect of morality. What should one do about these supposed ‘porn’ pieces: regulate their existence and control potential tensions and conflicts, or let frictions emerge between the partisans and the opponents of such urban interventions? Who gets to say what should be tolerated and what should be regulated in public space? In this opinion piece, I situate this issue between two ends: an agonistic one, in which contestation is the rule; and an excessively regulatory one, in which public space is over-rationalized and normalized.

There is no clear answer to the question if corruption makes victims. Currently an (international) discussion is taking place about this matter. On the one hand it can be discussed that corruption in general does not know any direct victims and that corruption can even take place without any damage. On the other hand it is known that corruption can cause tremendous public and financial damage, with society as a whole as the victim of this crime, whether or not in primary gradation. In the underlying article these two perspectives will be discussed and applied on two cases. Special attention will also be paid to the impact and relevance of pointing out the victims.

In recent years, measures have been taken to involve victims in the Netherlands more in the criminal proceedings of their offenses. This development, has led the three Dutch probation organizations (together 3RO) to aim for a more victim focused and restorative oriented approach with their clients. Two reports have been written to aid this victim-oriented approach within probation services. This contribution reflects on these reports and provides additions based on scientific literature. Both reports offer a good overview of existing practices and approaches to work in a more victim focused and restorative way, which can help to increase awareness among probation workers. The additions concern research about the positive outcomes of organizing contact between offenders and victims from unrelated crimes and new research findings concerning the role of feelings of guilt and shame. In addition, consciously talking and acknowledging clients’ victimization is presented as an essential mechanism to create willingness among them to consider the experiences of (their) victims, especially for those who are initially unwilling to do so.

In The Netherlands not much attention has been paid towards the relationship between domestic violence and organized crime. In this contribution the question is addressed why this is. One of the answers is that there is doubt about the moral status of the victim of organized crime: it assumed that the victim has benefited from the proceedings of organized crime. When domestic violence and involvement with organized crime by one of the family members come together, the case becomes more complex and difficult to deal with. For that reason professionals and researchers should pay more attention to the overlap of both phenomena.

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.