https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/issue/feed 2025-04-16T20:03:55+02:00 Anette Storgaard as@law.au.dk Open Journal Systems <p>NTfK er et videnskabeligt tidsskrift, der hovedsageligt henvender sig til forskere og andre fagpersoner med interesse for strafferetlige eller kriminologiske emner i bred forstand.</p> https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156708 2025-04-15T21:02:52+02:00 Linnéa Österman linnea.osterman@gu.se

<p><strong>Abstract</strong><br />We live in a time when research ethics is more regulated than ever before. In 2004 Sweden became the first country in the world to legally require ethical reviews across all research disciplines. In 2019 the Ethical Review Authority was created as a national body to increase uniformity and efficiency in review processes (Etikprövningsmyndigheten, 2023). These processes are not without criticism. There are concerns that their formal, standardised format is ill-suited to identifying the ethical dilemmas that arise in qualitative research and may – in some cases – even exacerbate them or create new ethical dilemmas (Wästerfors, 2019). Some suggest that this is especially true for criminological research, which occupies a distinctly different methodological, ethical and political terrain than that of the bio-medical field, where ethical procedures were originally established (Johnstone, 2005). As procedural demands have grown, so has the distrust in researchers to self-regulate. The idea that additional rules and regulations will resolve this issue and enhance research ethics is increasingly questioned, and criminologists have been urged to develop their ethical imagination (Israel and Gelsthorpe, 2017). This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on ethical challenges and perspectives within this contemporary regulatory setting. It aims to add nuance and diversity while contributing to what Edlund et al. (2021) have described as key for the evolution of the field: keeping the ethical conversation alive.<br />Drawing on first-hand experiences of conducting feminist-grounded qualitative research with women with lived experiences of crime and the criminal justice system, this paper reflects on the navigation of personal and practical issues in research ethics that go beyond box-ticking exercises. The paper begins with a brief review of the literature on ethical regulatory trends and approaches and links it to wider questions of methodology. It then reflects on personal fieldwork experiences and ethical considerations within this context, exemplified by issues such as consent, perceptions of harm, the impact of bureaucratic and institutional restraints on ethical ideals, and researcher well-being – which can be conceptualised in an ethical framework via, for example, empathy fatigue and grief in the research process. The paper concludes with a call for a collaborative, dialogic conceptualisation of ethical practice that, instead of box-ticking and rule compliance, promotes ongoing self-reflexive and collegial ethical discussions and responsibilities.</p> <p>Vi lever i en tid då forskningsetik är mer reglerad än någonsin. År 2004 blev Sverige det första landet i världen att införa lagkrav att forskning inom alla discipliner ska genomgå etisk granskning. 2019 skapades Etikprövningsmyndigheten som ett nationellt organ för att öka enhetlighet och effektivitet i granskningsprocesser (Etikprövningsmyndigheten, 2023). Dessa processer har inte varit utan kritik, speciellt att det formella och standardiserade formatet är dåligt lämpat för att fånga upp etiska dilemman som kvalitativa forskare hanterar, och kan till och med – i vissa fall – skapa nya etiska betänkligheter (Wästerfors, 2019). Vissa menar att detta är särskilt sant för kriminologisk forskning, som upptar en distinkt annorlunda metodologisk, etisk och politisk terräng än det biomedicinska området som de etiska granskningsprocesserna grundas i (Johnstone, 2005). I takt med att kraven på formella processer har vuxit har även misstroendet för forskare att självreglera ökat. Idéen att ytterligare regler och förordningar kommer att ta itu med detta och göra forskningen mer etisk ifrågasätts dock alltmer, och kriminologer uppmanas att vidareutveckla våra etiska visioner (Israel and Gelsthorpe, 2017). Denna artikel syftar till att bidra till den växande litteraturen som diskuterar etiska utmaningar och perspektiv i denna specifika regleringskontext, med det övergripande målet att bidra till vad Edlund et al (2021) har beskrivit som nyckeln till vidareutvecklingen av detta område, det vill säga; att hålla det etiska samtalet vid liv.</p> <p>Med utgångspunkt i erfarenheter av att bedriva feministisk forskning med kvinnor med erfarenheter av kriminalitet och straffrättsliga system kommer artikeln att kritiskt reflektera över hur forskare kan navigera det personliga såväl som det praktiska inom forskningsetik som sträcker sig bortom ‘box-tickande’ övningar. Artikeln inleds med en kort genomgång av litteraturen som kritiskt diskuterar etiska regler och tillvägagångssätt. Den går sedan vidare med att reflektera utifrån egna erfarenheter från fältet och etiska värderingar och dilemman inom dessa, exemplifierat av en diskussion i områden såsom komplexitet inom samtycke, definitioner av skada, rollen av byråkratiska och institutionella regler för etiska valmöjligheter, samt hur forskares välbefinnande kan förstås inom ramen för etiska övervägandena via till exempel empati-trötthet och sorg i forskningsprocessen. Artikeln konkluderas med en uppmaning till en kollaborativ, dialogisk konceptualisering av etisk praktik, som istället för ‘box-tickande’ och regelefterlevnad främjar fortlöpande självreflekterande och kollegiala etiska diskussioner och ansvarstaganden.</p> <p> </p>

2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156709 2025-04-15T21:31:20+02:00 Kim Møller Kim.moeller@mau.se Sadia Khan Sadia.khan@mau.se

<p><strong>Abstract</strong><br>We examine how Swedish social workers and experts perceive the benefits and costs of reporting honour crimes to police. The number of actions and inactions that constitute honour crimes has increased since the law changed to include non-violent controlling behaviours. Honour crimes are collective offenses involving close victim-offender relationships. As such, they are associated with low reporting and a high dark figure. Through interviews with eleven social workers and professionals, we analyse the benefits of reporting, including accessing resources, protecting victims, deterring perpetrators, achieving justice, raising societal awareness, and building competencies among police and prosecutors. The costs of a victim involving police include the possibility of re-traumatisation, the escalation of danger from vindictive families, and damage to trust in support services. Our interviewees noted that the resource situation has improved and argued for a victim-centred response that acknowledges self-determination while recognizing the legal obligation to report crimes against minors. To increase reporting rates, there should be better coordination<br>between police and social services, more specialized training, and an increased prioritization of honour crimes in the justice system.</p> <p>Vi undersøger, hvordan svenske socialarbejdere og eksperter opfatter fordele og omkostninger ved at anmelde æresrelaterede forbrydelser til politiet. Antallet af handlinger og undladelser, der er kriminelle, er steget, da loven nu også omfatter ikke-voldelig kontrollerende adfærd. Æresrelaterede forbrydelser er kollektive lovovertrædelser med tætte relationer mellem offer og gerningsperson, faktorer der er forbundet med lav anmeldelsestilbøjelighed og derfor et stort mørketal. Gennem interviews med elleve socialarbejdere og fagfolk analyserer vi for delene ved anmeldelse, herunder adgang til ressourcer, offerets sikkerhed,<br>afskrækkelse af gerningspersoner, retfærdighed, øget samfundsmæssig bevidsthed og opbygning af kompetencer hos politi og anklagere. Omkostningerne ved at mobilisere politiet består af mulig re-traumatisering af ofre, øget fare fra hævngerrige familier og mindsket tillid til socialarbejdere. Vores interviewpersoner bemærkede, at ressourcesituationen er blevet forbedret og argumenterede for en offercentreret indsats, der anerkender selvbestemmelse, samtidig med at den retlige forpligtelse til at anmelde forbrydelser mod mindreårige respekteres. For at øge anmeldelsesraten bør der være bedre koordinering mellem politi og sociale tjenester, mere specialiseret uddannelse og en overordnet prioritering af æresrelaterede forbrydelser i retssystemet.</p>

2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156710 2025-04-15T21:51:35+02:00 Katrine Barnekow Rasmussen katrine.barnekow.rasmussen@jur.ku.dk

<p><strong>Abstract</strong><br />This article is the second of two published in this journal examining the restorative aspect of the Danish Youth Crime Boards. The boards were launched on 1 January 2019 as part of new legislation aimed at combating and preventing youth offending. They focus on offenders aged 10 to 17, with those aged 10 to 14 legally considered below the age of criminal responsibility. The legislative framework recommends that, where possible, the boards’ verdicts should have a restorative character and align with the principles of restorative justice.</p> <p>This article examines the boards’ potential to serve as a restorative factor in the lives of young offenders – a desire cited in the previous article as having been expressed by board members and management. Additionally, new results are presented indicating that nearly one-third of the children and young people whose cases were handled by the Youth Crime Boards had been registered as victims in cases that occurred prior to their referral to the boards as offenders. This underscores the importance of a restorative approach that considers the context of a young person’s life beyond the immediate referral case.</p> <p>The restorative potential of the Danish Youth Crime Boards’ practice is examined through observations of board meetings, interviews with board members and management, and analyses of board decisions. Overall, I argue that the framework and practices of the boards create obstacles to the involvement of the children, young offenders and their guardians. Given this, a process within the Youth Crime Boards cannot generally be expected to play a restorative role in the lives of those they serve. The findings are compared with Norwegian practices of restorative reactions to children’s and young people’s offences, which I argue is an appropriate source of inspiration if the Danish Youth Crime Boards are to develop their practice in a more restorative direction. While the board management seems open to such a development, the legal framework presents certain obstacles in this regard.</p>

2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156711 2025-04-16T05:07:16+02:00 Annika Suominen as@law.au.dk 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156712 2025-04-16T05:13:26+02:00 Asbjørn Strandbakken as@law.au.dk 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156713 2025-04-16T05:22:52+02:00 Tine Søberg as@law.au.dk Svend Foldager as@law.au.dk 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156714 2025-04-16T05:39:09+02:00 Kriminalistforeningen i Danmark sekretariat@kriminalistforeningen.dk 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156715 2025-04-16T05:56:20+02:00 Suomen Kriminalistiyhdistys info@kriminalistiyhdistys.fi 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156716 2025-04-16T06:07:12+02:00 Kriminalistforeningen i Island – Sakfræðifélag Íslands 2024 rb@hi.is 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156717 2025-04-16T06:19:14+02:00 Den Norske Kriminalistforening kriminalistforeningen@gmail.com 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156722 2025-04-16T19:38:39+02:00 Svenska kriminalistföreningen sekreterare@kriminalistforeningen.se 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156704 2025-04-15T20:08:43+02:00 NTfK ntfk.adm@gmail.com 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156705 2025-04-15T20:47:59+02:00 NTfK ntfk.adm@gmail.com 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156706 2025-04-15T20:51:23+02:00 NTfK ntfk.adm@gmail.com 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025 https://tidsskrift.dk/NTfK/article/view/156707 2025-04-15T20:55:57+02:00 Anette Storgaard as@law.au.dk 2025-04-16T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2025