From a moral standpoint, we would expect the practice of punishment to reflect a solid and commonly shared legitimizing framework. Several moral legal theories explicitly aim to provide such frameworks. Based on the theories of Retributivism, Utilitarianism, and Restorative Justice, this article first sets out to develop a theoretically integrated model of penal attitudes and then explores the extent to which Dutch judges' attitudes to punishment fit the model. Results indicate that penal attitudes can be measured in a meaningful way that is consistent with an integrated approach to moral theory. The general structure of penal attitudes among Dutch judges suggests a streamlined and pragmatic approach to legal punishment that is identifiably founded on the separate concepts central to moral theories of punishment. While Restorative Justice is frequently presented as an alternative paradigm, results show it to be smoothly incorporated within the streamlined approach.

This article provides an empirical test of the common assumption that public support for vigilantism is affected by confidence in police. Aside from assessing the role of diffuse (general) confidence in police, we also tested whether police response on a situational level affects how the public views an act of vigilantism. Respondents (N 0385) were presented with a vignette about vigilantism. Using an experimental between-subjects design, we varied police responsiveness (high/low) to precipitating crime as well as vigilante violence (high/low). Diffused confidence in police was a significant predictor of support for vigilantism. Additionally, both experimental factors played an important role: low police responsiveness and low vigilante violence led to more support for vigilantism. Citizens are thus sensitive to situational variation when judging a crime. Our findings also emphasise the importance of police action on a local level for the formation of public opinion.

No abstract

EnforcementThe distance-decay function suggests a spatial pattern of criminal activity whereby most crimes are committed nearer rather than farther from the criminals' own homes. Presumably, the farther away the target, the lower the chances of crimes. The reason usually offered for this general pattern is an individual one: The costs to the criminal in terms of time, energy, and money increases with distance. We contend that it may be misleading to draw inferences about individuals from the aggregated decay function because it conceals individual variations in ranges of operation. This argument is supported by data randomly generated by the computer that show that even when individual criminals increase their crime rate with increasing distance, a distancedecay function still emerges at the aggregate level. This is not to say that an individual-level distance-decay function does not exist, only that it must be demonstrated by data at the individual level because distance-decay effects can characterize aggregate behavior even in the absence of individual distance decay.Since the 1960s criminologists have become increasingly interested in the spatial distribution of crimes (e.g., Brantingham and Brantingham,

Stalking is an obsessive behavior. Legal definitions generally characterize stalking as repetitive conduct. It may therefore be expected that recidivism by stalkers is high. We investigated court statistics of stalking cases to establish which proportion relapses in stalking behavior after a conviction and what other types of new crimes they commit. Case files of stalking cases have been investigated to find out whether and which neutralization techniques are used by stalkers to justify harassing behaviors. Stalkers who do recidivate do so quickly after a conviction. They appear to make use of various neutralization techniques. There is a small group of highly obsessive stalkers that seems not to be stopped by any of the measures, sanctions, or interventions that are imposed.

A substantial minority (35%) of the Dutch population is in favor of capital punishment. In this paper, it is argued that in a staunchly abolitionist country such as The Netherlands, the existence and perseverance of such support can be better understood and explained by conceiving of capital punishment support in attitudinal terms as part of a law and order syndrome. Death penalty attitudes are analyzed by means of hierarchic logistic regression analysis. It is shown that support can be modeled quite well, partly in terms of general attitudes to criminal justice, partly in terms of political and sociodemographic parameters. Within the criminal justice attitudes complex, more support is found among those endorsing harsh treatment of offenders, those willing to grant far-reaching powers to justice authorities, those believing that the government is not delivering on the topic of crime fighting, and those who are concerned about the level of crime. Within the political context, more support is enlisted among people who abstain from voting and those who vote at either extreme of the political spectrum as opposed to central parties' supporters. In sociodemographic segments it is the younger and poorly educated who are the strongest supporters of capital punishment. It is suggested that endorsing capital punishment can be better understood as an expressive act, displaying dissatisfaction with judicial and political elites in the country.

This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N=2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N=180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N=917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public's preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges' sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.

Research on legal and extralegal disparity in criminal sentencing has been conducted primarily in the United States, and, to a lesser extent, in select European nations. Largely separate research literatures have developed around juvenile and adult sentencing decisions, and few studies examine both prosecutorial and judicial punishment outcomes. This study examines the effects of diverse legal and socio-demographic characteristics on both prosecutorial and judicial punishments, for both juveniles and adults. It assesses the broad generalizability of prior research and theorizing, analyzing punishment outcomes for all criminal suspects registered by the Public Prosecutor's Office in the Netherlands in 2007. Results indicate that offense, case-processing and criminal history characteristics weigh heavily in prosecutorial and judicial decision-making. There are also direct effects of age, gender and nationality on both prosecutorial and sentencing decisions, for both juvenile and adult offenders, in the Dutch justice system. These findings are discussed in relation to the broad discretion exercised by Dutch court actors and the paper concludes with recommendations for future sentencing research in international contexts.