Domestic violence is a prevalent and persistent problem in society. To be able to effectively intervene in cases of domestic violence, protect victims, and reduce the costs of domestic violence, several initiatives have been implemented in recent years with the aim of improving the response to domestic violence. A multidisciplinary and systemic approach to tackling domestic violence has been introduced, which is especially important in complex cases. Police work together with different partners, among others, the organisation ‘Safe at Home’ (Veilig Thuis) and the public prosecutor. Police play a particularly important role in achieving immediate safety in cases of domestic violence, and work together with partners to accomplish more structural safety for all family members. The development towards a more holistic response to domestic violence in which the police work together with other organisations is important to be able to tackle domestic violence more effectively. Although the importance of collaboration between different organisations has been recognised, the multidisciplinary response is still in development, resulting in some problems in practice.

Using digital (online) means (for example video calling) to facilitate communication between victims, offenders and mediators during victim-offender mediation (VOM) is not common practice, but has been employed more frequently during the corona pandemic. Do such digital means have added value for restorative justice practices, even when corona measures no longer hinder offline communication? This contribution shares some of the findings from the PhD project of Florian Bonensteffen, that focuses on the potential (dis) advantages of implementing digital communication and technologies in the VOM field in the Netherlands. In a qualitative study based on interviews with victims, offenders and mediators, the perceived applicability and ease of using digital communication forms in the VOM process were examined. Findings indicate that such forms are perceived to promote the emotional well-being of victims and offenders in cases where meeting face-to-face might be too stressful (e.g. due to fear), as well as can provide for a richer exchange than current offline forms of letter exchanges or shuttle mediation. Perceived interpersonal disadvantages of digital communication during VOM were mentioned only in comparison to face-to-face meetings and involved a limited exchange of non-verbal and contextual information about the other party, and less control over the digital dialogue for the mediator. Practical disadvantages centered around privacy and technical stability concerns. The findings suggest that digital forms of communication such as videoconferencing and -messages during VOM have the potential to fill the void between current offline direct (face-to-face) and indirect forms (letter exchange and shuttle mediation) – if such digital means are well-prepared and the privacy of parties is safeguarded.

This chronicle discusses the importance of Bruno Latour’s work for criminology, paying attention to the role of technology and our relationship to nature. The author proposes to criminalize ecocide and advocates the use of restorative justice in dealing with environmental crimes.

In recent years scientific interest in various aspects of prison climate has increased exponentially. At first, such research was being initiated and undertaken predominantly within Anglo-Saxon penology but, more recently, research into prison climate is also increasingly taking place elsewhere, including in the Netherlands and Belgium. In this article the authors offer an overview of Dutch and Belgian research on prison climate. They discuss the literature from two broad angles: first, the characteristics of prisons and incarcerated individuals that determine the quality of prison climate; and, second, research on the impact of prison climate on inmates themselves.

In this essay the authors argue that social and genetic explanations for behavior are intertwined, and that genetically informed research designs can be a valuable addition to the toolbox that is available to criminologists for examining causal relationships and intergenerational transmission. From this ‘toolbox’ perspective, the authors discuss four study approaches: twin and family designs, genome-wide association studies, polygenetic scores and Mendelian Randomization. Finally, they address a number of practical considerations for applying genetically informed research designs in criminology.

Criminology has traditionally focused on urban areas where crime visibly concentrates. However, since the 1990s, attention for ‘rural criminology’ has steadily increased. First, rural areas are confronted with partly different and less visible crime problems, such as environmental crimes. Second, public actors such as enforcement and other agencies are less present and ‘available’ in rural areas, and people on average trust the government less to provide support when necessary. This chronicle presents an overview of international and Dutch research in the context of rural criminology. The paper addresses cultural differences between urban and rural areas, high-volume crimes, gender-related violence, alcohol and drug abuse, environmental crime, and enforcement in rural areas.

Criminology, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has built on anthropology (and other social sciences) in its development. This contribution addresses the question which insights in criminology have most been inspired by anthropology. First, it looks into the ‘criminal anthropology’ of Lombroso; then it embarks on an appreciation of the ethnographic research design within criminology (as first adopted by the Chicago School); and, finally, it assesses the link between anthropology, and cultural and global criminology. I conclude that anthropology has been valuable to our discipline on four levels: methodologically (in the importance of the ethnographic research design), theoretically (in its role in the development of symbolic interactionism and structuralism, for example), geographically (in the global scope of anthropological research), and analytically, in its experience with ‘doing ethnography’ in economically, politically and culturally embedded ways.

This contribution provides an overview of the legal and criminological research into the decision following the determination of a supervisor that the conditions of a freedom-restricting sanction are not met. It is an important decision, on the one hand because it can result in a more severe sanction than was initially imposed, on the other hand because a decision that is perceived as unfair can influence the extent to which suspects and convicts are willing to comply with conditions, and recidivism. Yet little research has been conducted into this decision. The legal safeguards with which it is accompanied are lagging behind those of the original sentencing decision. Undeserved according to penitentiary experts. The scarce empirical research shows that decision-making involves many different layers and that the actors involved have different goals, ranging from deterrence and emphasizing the credibility of the system to the successful completion of the sanction. Even in countries where regulations have been tightened considerably, the discretionary power of direct supervisors, such as employees of the working project or therapists, is still large. This raises the question to what extent the final decision maker (usually a judge) still has sufficient room to make an independent decision.