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.
The backbone of Dutch criminal procedure is the case file including a large number of written records. In Dutch courts the focus is primarily on evaluation of written records. The written record of police interrogation is a mediated account of the interrogation itself. In this study we explore how individual differences in the production of written records by police officers affect the jurists' evaluation of the suspect's story and of the quality of the interrogation itself. In the first study, five police officers produced written records of one and the same interrogation on video of a denying suspect. In the second study, three of those written records are evaluated by jurists. They are asked to determine story acceptability of the suspect and procedural fairness of the interrogation. Findings show that a short and simple interrogation of a suspect results in written records that are quite different (Study I). It is further shown that these differences affect the jurists' evaluation of some of the core issues addressed in a criminal process (Study II). Implications of these findings are discussed as well as a number of possible ways to improve the current state of affairs.
Adversarial systems and court-centered systems approach the use of expert evidence very differently. This article focuses on the perspectives held by judges and other process participants on bias and partisanship in expert reporting in Australia and the Netherlands. It aims to provide insight into the origins of, and reasons for, bias and partisanship, focusing on psychological and psychiatric expertise. The first part of the article explains differences between adversarial and court-centered systems with respect to the involvement of experts. The second part examines judicial attitudes with respect to partisanship and bias and the way in which these issues are dealt with in the two systems. The article explores how these systems provide safeguards against partisanship by the experts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.