Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The war on street ‘terror’. Why tackle anti-social behaviour?

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the rationales of Dutch politicians for tackling the perceived pressing problem of ‘anti-social behaviour’ (ASB) and the question did they copy the British approach? The first part will describe in short the concept of policy transfer and the recent British fight against ASB. The focus will be on the introduction of the Anti-social Behaviour Order. The second part is an empirical study into the Dutch retreat from ‘condoning’ ASB, consisting of interviews with Dutch politicians focusing on their ideas for tackling ASB. Those are compared with the British’s rationales. This kind of comparative elite ethnography is not common in criminology, but this article aims at providing evidence of its benefits. By answering the research question an insight into the origins of policy in the sphere of criminal justice can be obtained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A small city of 70.845 inhabitants (www.gouda.nl)

  2. MP Mark Rutte in the Telegraaf (October 3, 2008).

  3. Both ‘anti-social behaviour’ and ‘nuisance in the public domain’ are contested concepts. Defining what is currently meant by them is not straightforward and is context-specific. In this article the concepts refer to persistent, un-acceptable non-criminal or minor criminal behaviour of young people in a public order context.

  4. Debate on the 25th of September 2008, after incidents of anti-social behaviour in the city of Gouda lead to widespread public outcry (AD, Telegraaf, NRC).

  5. Key documents are those papers that concern the tackling of ASB after the publication of the Dutch government paper To a safer society [35]. This document has been chosen as a point of departure because as also Pakes [37] argues, this appears the formal beginning of the tougher approach on ASB.

  6. The research has been conducted from July till November 2008.

  7. In general I was successful in gaining access to senior politicians and policy-makers. Nonetheless at their request, their quotes have been impersonalized.

  8. In total N = 18.

  9. Most writers are aware of the problems of a broad perspective but aimed at understanding macro trends in penal policy [27].

  10. In this article the meso-level concerns the role of political actors in the policy make-up of their countries crime policies.

  11. The crime and disorder act (1998) introduced ASBOs.

  12. <http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11769.asp>.

  13. The two-step prohibition structure can be placed in the tradition of the Statutory Nuisance Abatement Notice. It dates back into the 19th Century and would have been a familiar power to the local housing managers who invented the original proposal for the Community Safety Order [44].

  14. Page 37

  15. 0405tkkvr381. Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2004–2005 (vraag 381).

  16. In Amsterdam neighbourhoods (Slovervaart) in Utrecht (Kanaleneiland) and the Hague (Transvaal).

  17. Resp. Slovervaart and de Baarsjes.

  18. <http://www.nicis.nl/nicis/dossiers/Zorgenwelzijn/Jeugdzorg/verrijktdossier/Jongerenoverlast_1132.html> (accessed May 30, 2008).

  19. As stated in the Volkskrant (June 13, 2007).

  20. Translated as “ff kappe”.

  21. The evaluation rapport concluded that the effects of the Pilot could not be measured (Letter to parliament Evaluatie Doe-Normaal pilot, Ministerie van Justitie and Minister van BZK, (5554663/08)).

  22. See notes in the Letter to parliament Evaluatie Doe-Normaal pilot, Ministry of Justice and the Home Office (5554663/08).

  23. Others are, the ‘minor nuisance at municipal level act’ (still in draft), and ‘the public prosecution service settlement act’ [11].

  24. Official title in Dutch; ‘Maatregelen bestrijding voetbalvandalisme en ernstige overlast (31 467).’

  25. Or one can be ordered to report at certain times.

  26. A prison sentence up to three months or a fine can be the end result.

  27. For example; Restraining order, duty to report, contact injunction.

  28. Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom, 4th–12th November 2004, The Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, 8 June 2005, pp. 34–37.

  29. The respondents represent various political parties, only when there are notable political differences between the statements is this mentioned.

  30. Topics on the list were; ASB definition, current measures, causes of ASB, reasons for tackling ASB, future, extent of ASB etc.

  31. Translated in Dutch as ‘prachtwijken’or ‘Vogelaar-wijken’.

  32. Objectives of GSB Urban Policy Programs are • To improve objective and perceived security • To improve the quality of the built environment • To improve social cohesion within society as a whole • Bind middle and higher income groups to the cities • Enhance the economic performance of Dutch cities see http://www.nicis.nl/kenniscentrum/binaries/nicis/bulk/publicaties/2008/10/engelstalige-factsheet-gsb3-en-krachtwijken.pdf.

  33. Kamerstukken II 2007–2008, 28 684, nr. 130, te vinden op <www.minbzk.nl//onderwerpen/veiligheid/veilige-samenleving/nieuws-en/110943/kabinet-en-gemeenten>.

  34. Thereafter a so-called revolt of the voters.

  35. Veiligheidsmonitor Rijk 2007.

  36. Besides the most apparent that there are two different judicial systems.

  37. There is not yet prove of positive effects of the ASBO. Ipsos MORI a research company will publish an evaluation at the beginning of 2009.

  38. Vote on motie Anker, 11-11-2008 (Tcm118-175522).

  39. This is based on the precautionary principle used in environmental policies “Where there are threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992: principle 15)”.

  40. Earlier Morris [36] also argued that scientific research is often not the bases for new policies.

  41. Speech at a conference 10 February 2006, available at www.number10.gov.uk (last visited 15 December 2008).

References

  1. Ashworth, A. (2004). Social control and ‘anti-social behaviour’: the subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bakalis, C. (2007). ASBOs, preventative orders and the European court of human rights European rights L Rev 427.

  3. Brants, C. (2002). Criminologie en politiek. Tijdschrift voor criminologie, 4(1), 2–25.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, A. (2004). Anti-social behaviour, crime control and social control. The Howard journal, 43(2), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burney, E. (2005). Making people behave. Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Uffculme: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burney, E. (2009). Making people behave. Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy (2nd ed.). Uffculme: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buruma, Y. (2007). Dutch tolerance: On drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia. In M. Tonry & C. Bijleveld (Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands, vol. 35. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cobb, N. (2007). Governance through publicity: anti-social behaviour orders, young people and the problematization of the right to anonymity. Journal of Law and Society, 34(3), 342–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Colander, D. (2004). From muddling through to the economics of control: View of applied policy from J.N. Keynes to Abba Lerner, Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0421, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.

  10. Crawford, A. (2008). Dispersal powers and the symbolic role of anti-social behaviour legislation. The Modern Law Review, 71(5), 753–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Devroe, E. (2008). The policy approach of nuisance problems in public space in Belgium and the Netherlands. In L. Cachet (Ed.), Governance of security in the Netherlands and Belgium. Den Haag: BJu Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dolowitz, D. (2003). A policy-makers guide to policymaking. Political Quarterly, 74(1), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Donoghue, J. (2008). Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in Britain. Contextualizing risk and reflexive modernization. Sociology, 42(2), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ericson, R. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Edwards, A., & Hughes, G. (2005). Comparing the governance of safety in Europe: a geo-historical approach. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 345–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans, M. (2004). Policy transfer in global perspective. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Furedi, F. (2005). Politics of fear. Beyond left and right. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Garret, P. (2006). Making ‘anti-social behaviour’: a fragment of the evolution of ‘ASBO politics’ in Britain. British Journal of Social Work, 2–18.

  20. von Hirsch, A., & Simester, A. (2006). Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hogwood, B. (2001). Beyond muddling through—can analysis assist in designing policies that deliver? Appendix 1, modern policy making. London: National Audit Office.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Home Office. (2004). Defining and measuring anti-social behaviour. Home office development and practice report.

  23. Home Office. (2007). A guide to anti-social behaviour tools and powers.

  24. Hudson, B. (2003). Justice in the risk society: challenging and re-affirming justice in late modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Huisman, W., & Koemans, M. (2008). Administrative measures in crime control. Erasmus Law Review, 1(5), 121–145.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobson, J. (Ed.) (2008). Why tackle anti-social behaviour? In: P. Squires (Ed.), ASBO nation. The criminalisation of nuisance. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  27. Jones, T., & Newborn, T. (2007). Policy transfer and criminal justice. Exploring US influence over British crime control policy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jong, de J. (2007). Kapot moeilijk. Dissertation; Rijksuniveristeit Groningen.

  29. Koemans, M. (2008). Ten strijde tegen overlast. Proces, 6, 206–211.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lippens, R. (2008). The end of the social: ASBOs in England and Wales. In L. Cachet (Ed.), Governance of security in the Netherlands and Belgium. Den Haag: BJu Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  31. MacDonald, S. (2003). The nature of the Anti-social behaviour order- R (McCann and others) v Crown Court at Manchester. Modern Law Review, 66(4), 630–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Matthews, R., & Easton, H. (2007). Assessing the use and impact of anti-social behaviour orders. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Melossi, D. (2004). The cultural embeddedness of social control: reflections on the comparison of Italian and North-American cultures concerning punishment. In T. Newburn & R. Sparks (Eds.), Criminal justice and political cultures. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Millie, A. (2008). Anti-social behaviour, behavioural expectations and an urban aesthetic. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ministerie van BZK and Justitie (2002) Naar een veiliger samenleving, last visited 20th November 2008 www.minbzk.nl.

  36. Morris, J. (Ed.) (2000). Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.

  37. Pakes, F. (2005). De Britse aanpak van antisociaal gedrag. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 47(3), 284–289.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parsons, W. (2002). From muddling through to Muddling up. Evidence based policy-making and the modernisation of British government. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pieterman, R. (2008). De voorzorg cultuur: Streven naar veiligheid in een wereld vol risico en onzekerheid. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pollit, C. (2001). Convergence: the useful myth? Public Administration, 79(4), 933–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Punch, M. (2005). From ‘anything goes’ to ‘zero tolerance’: Policy transfer and policing in the Netherlands. Apeldoorn: Politie en Wetenschap.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Punch, M. (2005). Paradigm lost: the Dutch dilemma. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 28(2), 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Putman, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ramsay, R. (2008). Vulnerability, sovereignty and police power: A theory of the ASBO (PhD thesis, University of London).

  45. van Stokkom, B. (2007). Regulering van antisociaal gedrag. Aanpak van persistent overlastgevende jongeren in Engeland en Nederland. Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, 6(3), 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Squires, P. (2008). ASBO nation. The criminalisation of nuisance. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tonry, M. (1999). Symbol, substance and severity in western penal policies. Punishment and Society, 3(4), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Van Swaaningen, R. (2008). Sweeping the street: civil society and community safety in Rotterdam. In J. Shapland (Ed.), Justice, community and civil society: A contested terrain across Europe (pp. 87–106). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Van Weringh, J. (1978). Onrust is van alle tijden. Opstellen over criminaliteit in Nederland. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Vinocur, J. (2008). On Dutch left, a retreat from tolerance of old. Herald Tribune, December 30.

  52. Wittebrood, K., et al. (2008). Sociale veiligheid ontsleuteld: Veronderstelde en werkelijke effecten van veiligheidsbeleid. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands

    Monique Koemans

Authors
  1. Monique Koemans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Koemans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koemans, M. The war on street ‘terror’. Why tackle anti-social behaviour?. Crime Law Soc Change 53, 477–491 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9237-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9237-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation