Graffiti has been linked in empirical studies to disorder, fear of crime, avoidance behavior, vandalism and delinquency. In most of those studies, graffiti is treated as an abstract and uniform concept: no distinctions are made between one graffiti or another. Policies based on this assumption hold a zero tolerance approach, meaning all graffiti is deemed undesirable and is or should be removed. This has been criticized by several (theoretical) studies. On the other hand however, ethnographic studies present graffiti as a multifaceted phenomenon, serving as a means of communication, resistance and protest or as an art form. The current study investigates the assumption that graffiti is perceived as a homogeneous and undesirable environmental feature. This article examines whether graffiti is actually perceived uniformly by Dutch citizens, and if not how people distinguish between different graffiti; which types of graffiti are perceived as disorder and whether different types of people exist based on their attitudes towards graffiti. An extensive questionnaire was designed, based on a thorough analysis of the literature and empirical pilot studies. A nationally representative sample responded to general questions with respect to graffiti and judged eighteen specific examples of graffiti on a reliable scale that measured perceived disorder. Results indicate that people vary enormously in their ideas and attitudes. Also, not every graffiti is the same, meaning graffiti is not a homogeneous, uniform phenomenon. Both type of graffiti and the location on which the graffiti is situated relate to the degree of perceived disorder. For example, tags, small scribbles, were considered a public nuisance more than pieces, large colorful images. Also, graffiti on a house or car is perceived much more as disorder than graffiti in a skatepark. The diversity in views necessitates a normative

Human trafficking means exploitation; human smuggling is associated with illegal labour and a connection with exploitation is absent. Where a victim of human trafficking can appeal for legal protection, a smuggled migrant (illegally residing or with vulnerable legal status) overall has little rights because of the formal absence of the aspects of exploitation and coercion in human smuggling. In this article, the empirical analysis based on file analysis demonstrates that in several files of cases framed as human smuggling indications are found for exploitation of migrants, although this has not been recognised as such. Theoretically the authors tie this to the trend of crimmigration. Measures designed to combat human trafficking and smuggling are often concentrated on (criminal) law enforcement and criminal punishment, to the detriment of a human rights-based approach. The tension between immigration policy and the combat against human trafficking deserves more attention.

People vary in their perceptions and opinions, and that seems to be the case for the way they perceive anti-social behavior too. Scientific literature concerning the fear of crime hypothesizes diversity in the public’s perception of anti-social behavior and crime. But this fear of crime research tradition has been criticized repeatedly for its conceptual and methodological arrears. The focus has particularly been narrowed to ‘fear’ of ‘crime’, being measured by surveys. So, it is not very surprising that there has not been a thorough empirical focus on the assumed diversity in the perception of crime and anti-social behavior. To fill in this gap, the main research question in this article is: which differences in the perception of anti-social behavior exist within contemporary Dutch society? Using Q-methodology, five different factors were found in the perception of anti-social behavior. These factors have been labeled respectively: ‘disaffected residents’, ‘untroubled liberals’, ‘anxious communitarians’, ‘concerned spectators’ and ‘non-averse professionals’. These factors showed the empirical reality of the assumed diversity in the public perception of anti-social behavior. In all of these factors, people seem to address crime and anti-social behavior to a decrease of social standards and values in Dutch society, instead of worrying about chances and consequences of personal victimization. This was even the case for people who signalized crime and anti-social behavior in their own neighborhood. What really stands out is that people strongly agreed about the unacceptability of crime and anti-social behavior. People seem to have an aversion against these rude types of behavior. Altogether this image does not comply to the mainstream image of a ‘crime fearing society’. People do not seem to fear crime, but they seem to be worried and agitated about the moral conditions of the Dutch society in a wider framework. This might be a more reassuring illustration than a ‘crime fearing society’, but this proposition needs further and additional quantitative assessment.

In the Netherlands whistle-blowing regulations are still unbalanced and ineffective in the protection of whistle-blowers and the prevention of misconduct at work. This article focuses on the question how whistle-blowing behaviour is influenced by the type and severity of the wrongdoing. The study also examines to whom employees would report (internally and/or externally), if they would report anonymously, and why they would do that or not. As far as the authors know, this is one of the first studies on whistle-blowing behaviour that systematically investigates the characteristics of the wrongdoing by using vignettes. In a two by two design, two kinds of wrongdoing (safety problem or embezzlement) at two levels of severity are plotted against each other. When confronted with severe wrongdoing, respondents intend to blow the whistle more often (externally) than with mild wrongdoing. Of the four cases, the difference between mild and severe embezzlement is most pronounced. Internally, a difference is found between the vignettes in reporting anonymously. Most respondents prefer to report to their direct supervisor, especially when a mild safety problem occurs. With severe embezzlement however, respondents prefer to report to a confidential adviser within the company. Outside the company, reporting to one’s trade union is most popular. Nearly all respondents would only report externally after an internal report has not yielded any results, or they would not report outside the company at all. They often argue that it is an internal problem and that the company could be harmed if the wrongdoing would be disclosed. This argument is used in all vignettes. Anonymity is still considered important by the majority of the respondents. It is recommended in this article that policymakers specify whistle-blowing regulations that are adaptable to the specific characteristics of the wrongdoing and the reporting employee(s).