M.J. Borgers

Reconviction Rates After Suspended Sentences Comparison of the Effects of Different Types of Suspended Sentences on Reconviction in the Netherlands

Previous research has focused mainly on determining the effectiveness of suspended sentences compared with other sentences, and seldom on understanding to what extent the different types of suspended sentences reduce recidivism rates. This study examined reconviction rates of offenders (N = 1,258) who received fully or partly suspended prison sentences, with or without special conditions, in 2006 in two of the largest court districts in the Netherlands. Cox proportional hazard models revealed no difference in reconviction rates between fully and partly suspended prison sentences, with and without special conditions. However, suspended sentences without special conditions had significantly lower reconviction rates compared with special conditions that were solely control-orientated. Although there are indications that certain types of suspended sentences reduced reconviction rates more than other types, more rigorous research is still required.

Exploring public support for suspended sentences in the Netherlands

Using data from a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 656), we examined to what extent confidence in the criminal justice system, punitive penal attitudes and political orientation relate to public support for suspended sentences. Mediation and moderation analyses were done to further explore the dynamics behind public support for suspended sentences. Results showed that confidence in the criminal justice system, punitive penal attitudes and political orientation were related to public support for suspended sentences. In addition, support was found for our mediation and moderation hypothesis. In our conclusion we illustrate the importance of examining these factors in determining public support for suspended sentences.

The Netherlands: Statutory Balancing and a Choice of Remedies

The search for the truth has always dominated Dutch Criminal Procedure, as it has most continental European criminal justice systems. The Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, however, contains a provision that allows for exclusion of illegally gathered evidence, whether in violation of statutory rules or constitutional commands, after the judge engages in balancing various interests laid out in the statute. The Dutch provision says that, if a violation cannot be “remedied”, a concept often applied to certain “nullities” which can be “purged” or remedied, then the judge, taking into account the importance of the interest the rule protected, the seriousness of the violation, and the harm it caused to the rights of the defendant. If the judge finds a remedy is merited, he or she has several options. The most severe is to dismiss the entire criminal action, a remedy that is also available theoretically for the most serious “nullities”. The second option would be to prevent use of the evidence at trial, and the third, would be to reduce the defendant’s punishment due to the violation, but allow the evidence to be used at trial. This chapter thoroughly explores how the statutory provision is applied in different kinds of cases involving violations of the right to privacy and the right to silence and other rules relating to interrogations.

Framework Decision on combating terrorism: two questions on the definition of terrorist offences

This contribution discusses two questions arising in relation to the definition of terrorist offences in the Framework Decision on combating terrorism. Firstly, the question is considered as to what extent this definition contains a requirement of endangerment that Member States have to include in their national legislation. Secondly, the Framework Decisions significance for the position of activists, demonstrators and strikers will be addressed.

The Scope of the Community's Competence in the Field of Criminal Law.

In this paper, we focus on the issue of what the exact scope of the Communitys competence is in the field of criminal law, on the basis of a recent judgment of the Court of Justice EC on the Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against shipsource pollution, (Case C-440/05). For this purpose, we give an outline below of the background and developments leading up to the last mentioned judgment. We then summarise this judgment and give a survey of the main grounds of the Advocate General. Afterwards, we give our commentary on the judgment, followed by some concluding remarks.