Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Contributors -- About the Editors -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Introduction -- Drug-Related Issues -- Human Trafficking and Prostitution -- Mobility Crimes -- Sports and Crime -- Procurement, Corruption and Risk Assessment -- Criminal Law Enforcement -- Part I: Drug-Related Issues -- Chapter 2: The Bankruptcy of the Dutch Cannabis Policy: Time for a Restart -- Introduction -- The Dutch Cannabis Policy in Historical Perspective -- The State Should Not Preach -- The Simultaneous Increase in Cannabis and Heroin Use -- The Separation of Markets -- Developments in the Cannabis Market -- No 'Normalisation' of Cannabis -- The Unforeseen Expansion of the Cultivation and Trade in Cannabis -- The Closure of Checkpoint: The Bankruptcy of the Dutch Policy of Condoning -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Illicit Performance and Image Enhancing Drug Markets in the Netherlands and Belgium -- Introduction -- Methods -- Findings -- The Development of the PIED Market in Belgium and the Netherlands: From Legitimate Medicine to Underground Labs (UGLs) and Internet Traders -- A Categorization of PIED Dealers by Profession -- Drivers and Motivations: The Different Types of Suppliers Involved in the Belgian and Dutch PIED Market -- Organized Crime, Sport and the PIED Market -- Conclusion and Discussion -- The Evolution of Belgian and Dutch PIED Markets -- The Characteristics of Belgian and Dutch PIED Markets -- Recent Developments on the International PIED Market -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- Part II: Human Trafficking and Prostitution -- Chapter 4: Legal Prostitution Systems in Europe -- Introduction -- Public Opinion on Prostitution -- Flawed Analyses -- Type I: Similar Outcomes Regardless of State Policy -- Type II: Flawed Multinational Comparisons -- Trafficking in the Netherlands and Germany.

AbstractThis study aims at comparing legal practices in the execution of sentences within the framework of cross-border cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the implementation of the EU Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners and 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions in the three countries is analyzed. Interview data with legal practitioners suggest that social rehabilitation, consents of the convicted individuals and the actual place of living, play an important role in the initiations of transfers. Empirical evidence that both Framework Decisions are increasingly instrumentalized for migration control purposes, as the current scientific debate suggest, is weak in the three case countries. The relatively small numbers of transfers of prisoners and judgements show, that the transfer instrument is still not implemented to its full potential. This study exemplifies remaining challenges connected to the principle of mutual trust in the daily practice of cross-border legal cooperation within the EU.