Dutch prison crisis: A shortage of prisoners
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Yes some people do need locking up, but there seems to be a recognition that locking up an addict for theft doesn't solve the long-term issue. Teaching them to manage and overcome their addiction brings significantly better long-term results to society.
More interestingly the article mentions that dangerous criminals are locked up, but also vulnerable individuals that have broken the law and because the best help to get them back on track is within the prison system.
Dutch prisons are not just there to incarcerate, but to help people back to being fully functioning members of society.
To get "revolving door" prisoners down to 10% vs 56% in the UK is a huge achievement.
A lot of people are advocating for more police and longer sentences, but I don't see why. If you look at the numbers, the system is working.
The Police manpower is on par with the UK: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
The amount of prisoners / 100.000 inhabitants is on par with Germany: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...
Whose police and security forces are also underfunded. Apart from the usual "hey, new idea: let's increase pensions!" you need to do to win in an ageing country, this is the big topic in the upcoming election.
The crime level however is not so much increasing as it is always painted by interested lobbyists. For anyone looking for a deep dive: https://www.bka.de/SiteGlobals/Forms/Suche/Expertensuche_For... (Wikipedia link is broken).
Of course stats fluctuate and one always can find things that increase and that is reported. Context is usually left out. In 2015 it was increase of cars reported stolen (about half are recovered later). Here are the numbers:
2015: 35.941 (19.391)
2014: 34.653 (18.549)
2013: 35.696 (19.395)
2012: 34.176 (18.554)
2011: 35.564 (19.318)
Yes, there were more cars reported as stolen in 2015 than in 2013. But looking beyond the headlines there were even more recovered. Either funding of police increased, police became more effective or thieves more stupid.
Clearly there are areas where crime is on the rise. But then there are also areas where crime is falling. It is always easier to grow than making these adjustments. But in a not so fast growing society not all of these shifts are avoidable.
Yes many of them are addicts. However, addiction is not one of those things that someone just tries a drug and gets hooked and turns to crime. There are underlying mental issues that create an addict and those same issues tend to make them very bad people.
Also - "measly" 12 years? I understand the upheaval if he got 3 or 6 years - but 12 is an issue?
Addiction is very common on wall street, with enough money the external effects of addiction on society are less noticeable than you might think.
So in what way is incarceration going to help what you've identified as the likely root cause of the problem?
Incarceration only works if prisoners are given adequate care in all ways - especially mental. Rehabilitation should be the purpose. The Dutch system seems to believe that works best outside the walls of a prison cell.
The people that are looking for a talented A-tier lawyer are likely the ones that are the most guilty. These guys and gals exhibit Dark Triad[0] tendencies far more than the average labor/service-class defendant does.
If you're a mediocre defense lawyer on public defender detail, you'd probably have a much different perspective on criminals. The poor can't afford lawyers, guilty or innocent.
What's your position on Belgium outsourcing and renting cells in the Netherlands ?
Belgium does this for Luxembourg all the time, Germany and France mostly do it symbolically (joined military forces etc.). Would like to see more of this, especially when there are monetary benefits for both sides.
In the case of Belgium and The Netherlands, there probably is. A sizable minority of Belgians speak French, not Dutch, and due to poorer economic prospects they might also make up more than half the prison population.
But I assume that for people arrested for crimes in the Dutch speaking part, being jailed by someone you can't understand is Your Own Damn Fault. I mean, if they arrest Eastern Europeans then what are they going to do? Get prison wards to learn a bunch of Slav/Russian dialects?
Edit: Checking the facts, over 60% of the prison population is not actually Belgian, and this EC report: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/bel/2012-19-inf-eng.htm
"34. At the time of the 2009 periodic visit, the Belgian authorities had stated that, in principle, French-speaking prisoners were not considered for transfer to Tilburg Prison. Two years later, it has to be said that almost 20% of the prisoners - Belgian or foreign - in Tilburg are French speakers. Consequently, a not inconsiderable proportion of the prison's inmates find it difficult to communicate on a day-to-day basis with the Dutch staff, most of whom speak little or no French. The delegation also noted that the instructions on what to do in the event of fire breaking out, displayed in the cells, appear in Dutch, Arabic, Turkish and English, but not in French. Such communication difficulties are not without significant consequences during official administrative procedures, particularly of a disciplinary (see paragraph 36) or medical nature. The delegation took note of the efforts made by the Dutch prison staff to improve their knowledge of French. However, the CPT invites the authorities to limit as far as possible the transfer of French-speaking prisoners to Tilburg Prison. "
highlights that the French speakers are out of luck although reasonable efforts are done for them.
True, did not think about that. Was more thinking about natives speaking one of the native languages.
If I would get arrested anywhere in the world, I would want my country to try everything to get me back home and be prosecuted there. If I would get arrested at home, I would want the prison staff to speak the official language of my country.
Maybe there is an opportunity here to make Dutch the official language of prisons and in consequence the official language of crime :D
Here's hoping that they don't privatize prisons, like we have in the US.
The cold-blooded convicted killer of the frontrunner in the Dutch elections in 2002 was released after 12 years, something which is unthinkable in other countries.
As a Dutch guy, I agree with this in general. However, what the system does not take into account is that some people are just broken beyond any hope of ever being fixed. For example, there was a news story a while back about some petty criminal who stole some iPhones from a locker room and got caught. It was the 163rd time he got arrested. How do you deal with someone like that in a civilised manner ?
Of course, if your point is that certain people are beyond help, then I guess you can always find examples where this is true and then maybe you can set certain rules specific for those extreme cases.
But I think that doesn't invalidate the GP's point. In most cases helping the person recover is actually possible so it's worth giving that road a try.
No, there aren't. You can't force someone into psychiatric care unless they are a danger to themselves or others and even then it's a difficult process.
> But I think that doesn't invalidate the GP's point. In most cases helping the person recover is actually possible so it's worth giving that road a try.
I agree. But the system needs to acknowledge that it simply is not possible for some people. I don't think we should wait for someone to get arrested 100+ times to try a different approach.
My point was that someone that gets arrested not 100+ times, but even 5+ or 10+ is probably someone having serious issues participating in society (assuming we are not talking about North Korea or some other dictatorship regime with absurd incarceration laws).
Sometimes the culprit is going to be a medical reason for which we can try a medical treatment, but if not, there might be other possible treatments like those used with gang members (watch "La Vida Loca" documentary).
When all this fails, then we can maybe argue that we are dealing with one of those people for which there is no possible help, but it's not until now (hopefully) that we consider some potentially uncivilized way of dealing with these extremes.
That's how I would like to (broadly) deal with these people anyway. Not saying it's what happens, unfortunately.
That's why there also is involuntary commitment (TBS), where many people are in so-called "long stay" for decades, often until death, but that has been ruled against the declaration of human rights, so there is a possibility of getting released (which, afaik, has never been granted yet)
are you suggesting he should be locked up for a very long time for committing a lot of petty crimes?
You might call them "petty" crimes as if they are nothing, but to the person involved they are a very big deal.
for how long, indefinitely?
Yes. 144 crimes? He's not going to stop, so yes, indefinitely.
This isn't about punishing him, it's about keeping him away from everyone else.
For child molesters and murder, the goal is punishment, and then it's a specific amount of years which are determined as an appropriate punishment.
But here the goal is prevention.
The two categories can not be compared to each other because they are not the same. They have different goals, target different people, and have different time frames.
They just both happen to be implemented via jail which leads you to compare them, but it doesn't have to be that way - for example punishment can be corporal, and prevention can theoretically be done other ways (none practical at the moment, but things like an AI that watches behavior and stops the person or sounds an alarm may be possible in the future).
Well there's your problem, those are usually the goals of justice systems in places like the US. The entire point of this artical that those aren't the goals for the dutch
The example at hand was an example of a clear failure of rehabilitation. And when that happened the Dutch had no legal ability (or perhaps desire) to deal with it.
What sort of bank do prison owning CEOs make?
And I think folks should be. I'm American, the land of petty imprisonments and punishments lasting long after prison time is served. The system here seems to produce much better outcomes for both the people imprisoned and the community around them.
I agree there is a balance to be struck, the American system seems to be the other extreme.
Why do the families of victims matter the most? Does not every person matter equally?
Second, 14 (or 21) years for murder, really? A life isn't worth a lot anymore these days..
Prisons cost money.
As far as I'm concerned, there is indeed a punishment/revenge factor also in our current justice system, besides rehabilitation and keeping the streets safe from wrongdoers. That could lead to minimum sentences, especially for murder and even more so when it's premeditated. In general, I find that judges (in the Netherlands) strike an okay balance.
In addition, convicts may be involuntarily committed when their sentence is over (and often before). This is aimed at rehabilitation, but can be extended indefinitely.
[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_tot_levenslang_veroo... (in Dutch)
How much people live in Dutch? If Russians will send one killer for every key men in country, country will be their in just 12 years, while they lose nothing, because Dutch prison is much much more comfortable than a flat in Rostov. I see that in Ukraine right now.
Also, 14/21 years is about 20-25% of one's life. I think that's quite a lot, really.
Seems you're the one who isn't giving much value to the prisoner's life here.
If rehabilitation can't be accomplished in 14 years, it won't be accomplished in 20 or 30 either so what's the point of keeping them inside an arbitrary number of years after that?
edit: I just noticed you referred to imprisonment as punishment on another thread; that's where we differ in belief.
I'm not talking about accidents (e.g. a car crash), but premeditated murder? I personally think the length of that punishment is not in line with the crime. But hey, I'm getting downvoted to hell, so I guess most people think it is.
Prison isn't meant as a punishment in Norway, it is for rehabilitation of the person. People would rather they helped even the worst of people become members of society than let them rot in a cell for "punishment".
Did being sent to the naughty step when you were a kid solve your behavior or was it becoming a better person that solved it?
You can't really compare that though. In 99% of the cases, I agree with what you say and with that line of thought. I just don't when it comes to murder. To me, that seems like the worst of all possible crimes.
You're getting downvoted because you treat imprisonment as vengeance, as paying back a debt that is owed to the victim's family.
The more reasonable approach is to use imprisonment as a tool which prevents future crimes by the perpetrator and other potential criminals (through rehabilitation and deterrence). This yields better results and higher benefits to society as a whole, even if it might not be as emotionally satisfying to the victim's family.
Would you be comfortable spending time with someone you know who has cold-bloodedly killed another human being? I know I wouldn't. And I'm generally a person who is pretty open about most things.
We pay people to go murder other people and are fine with it. We call them soldiers and sometimes policemen too. Turns out that most people who kill someone else are able to come back more often than not well enough to be able to live in society, although PTSD is a well-known consequence for it.
Does that matter at all? I mean - no matter the punishment, the victim is dead, and nothing will bring them back.
So yes, lock them up: as minor deterrent (penal codes aren't very effective in that regard, if not even the death penalty prevents murder); to protect society; to give some standardized environment to hopefully correct the perpetrator so that they'll rediscover their humanity; and maybe for some sort of punishment (but that's really an afterthought, because as said, what does it matter?).
But (I hope) I'd refuse to let them also take my humanity (in addition to the life they took).
Quite good, you definitely got to meet all types of people.
Sadly unlike the Simpsons joke I cannot trade my voluntary work against future crimes.
Come to think of it, if it worked out, I could see non-prisoners that feel they need help or could help others out going. While NA and AA meetings have the appeal of almost always being done in private, inconspicuous locations, I'm sure that at least a few people might still attend meetings held in a hypothetical YMCA-prison. It could help with situations like these where there is a lot of extra room in the prison. This might be best suited to drug rehab facilities, but I think that the idea could work anywhere with a receptive environment. It would probably be hard to give a prison of a good image though.
According to comments here, it seems like similar systems already exist in some countries. If this is true, how effective have they been?
They can sometimes have social contact with the outside world, e.g. by having a football or chess team that plays in the league. Only home matches of course.
I played chess against some of these people inside once, you do keep wondering what they did to be there...
Luckily this is about to change, as our minister of health recently proposed to copy what Portugal has done – decriminalize all drug use and move all drug related problems to the health system, not the judicial system.
To bad for the Netherlands – they will probably loose a good customer.
I'm sure somebody can speak for California; I don't know much about the situation there.
The Washington cannabis-legalization model is based on a juridical argument: it's crazy to kick young people to the curb, take away their scholarships, and throw them in jail, for pot smoking, even though smoking pot is harmful. It wastes time and distracts the police from dealing with worse stuff like "human trafficking" (kidnapping teens and compelling them to work in the sex trade) and domestic violence.
The Colorado / Massachusetts model is based on a recreational argument. Cannabis is safer and less harmful than alcohol. People will use substances for fun. The less harmful those substances are, the better.
Both models involve regulation: purity, labeling, "carding" kids to keep them away from the stuff. Both involve taxation.
The recreational model is harder to use when arguing to end the prohibition of other drugs. Heroin and cocaine are, in fact, safer than alcohol when criminal gangs aren't involved in delivering them to users. The statistics come from experiments in various places where clinical decriminalization has been tried. But that's a very hard argument to make. The juridical argument is easier to use to convince people.
Both models cut down on police work, court work, and prison populations. As prohibition gradually contracts, lots of people will find themselves out of work: El Chapo and his cartel gangs, the Crips and Bloods, local gangs like the Insane Unknowns (who controlled the neighborhood where I lived as a graduate student on the south side of Chicago), police, probation workers, prison workers, and so forth.
People resist being thrown out of work, so eliminating prohibition will take another generation. People with access to legislatures (police, court, prison people) will resist there. The other side will fight it in the streets. But it will happen.
More info? Chasing the Scream, by Johann Hari. http://www.worldcat.org/title/chasing-the-scream-the-first-a...
Part of this counter-intuitive claim stems from the fact that alcohol has common and dangerous side effects like domestic violence and automobile violence.
Another part of it comes from statistical evidence showing the other compounds, when delivered safely (and not by criminal gangs) are not as dangerous as believed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/04/everythin...
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP325.html
Finally, consider the Iron Law of Prohibition: Prohibiting a substance drives out all but the most potent (easiest to smuggle) formulations of the substance. That makes the shit more dangerous.
Look, the claim is NOT that heroin and cocaine are not shit. They are. The claim is that the war on drugs has exaggerated their shittiness to justify itself.
The only solution to the shootings in the US is to equip more people with guns, you know, for "protection".
Luckily if you want results NOW, all you gotta do is outlaw marijuana. Nothing fills prisons like a War on Drugs.
Correct, it's a schizophrenic situation that pro-legalization and liberal parties have been trying to solve for a while.
However, since 2002 more conservative, christian and/or centre-right parties have been ruling who ideally want to criminalize again so it's not getting solved any time soon.
The pinnacle of honest characterizations /s
https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norsk-fengsel-i-nederland-1.12110... (Translate it with your favorite tool)
Well this truly sounds abhorrent.
Extremely orderly, all of it. Nowadays it's far more pragmatic and less restrictive of course, but there are still two prisons in active use.
I wonder how much their immigration policy has to do with it as well? If they were accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees from war torn countries their crime rate might not be so low.
It's the illegal immigrants for economic reasons that find life is very hard that are a problem.
Sending some prisoners to Dutch prisons (including a prison boat, iirc) is one of the best things that's happened to the Belgian penal system in years. Sadly it's only a temporary relief, and it's been cancelled (and resumed) several times.
In reality there is the decade old problem that the Dutch justice system cannot handle the amount of criminals. Not enough judges and money for that.
Partly because of this it has become very hard in the Netherlands to even file a police report for light to medium weight crimes committed to you. Police simply send you away if a crime is not heavy enough in their opinion. Criminals walk free on the street, and when they are caught they most often are back on the street the same day, unless it is a real serious crime of course.
At some point they even decided not to file a police report below 3Kg of cocaine smuggling from the Dutch Antilles. Why? There were just too many doing it and the justice system couldn't handle it..
The Netherlands in reality has a very high crime rate, but the government found smart ways to conceal that.
> 7.13. Toward this end, the “100% Control” policy was implemented, in which flights landing in Schiphol originating from the Dutch Caribbean, Suriname, or Venezuela are subject to extensive searches. Rather than attempting to scare off potential smugglers with the threat of incarceration, the Dutch approach was based on increasing the rate of interdiction to the point that smuggling becomes unprofitable. In other words, the focus was on the drugs, rather than the couriers, and was based on incapacitation, rather than traditional deterrence. Europol described the mechanics of the policy in this way:
> > Crews, passengers, their luggage, the cargo and the planes are systematically searched. Couriers with amounts of less than 3 kg of cocaine are not detained, unless they are arrested for the second time or another criminal offense is involved. Instead, the drugs are confiscated and the smugglers are sent back. Couriers who have been identified are registered on a blacklist, which is provided to KLM, Dutch Caribbean Airlines and Suriname Airways.
Also, the street value for 3Kg of cocaine is far above 50.000 euro's, do you realise how poor the people of the Dutch Antilles are? Without even a police report and a free ride back it's a clear invitation. And I didn't even mention the corrupt airport security, some of them make a sweet income out of this. It is definitely not "100% control", at all..
At some point they even decided not to file a police report below 3Kg of cocaine smuggling from the Dutch Antilles. Why? There were just too many doing it and the justice system couldn't handle it.
I was pointing to a World Bank study describing what actually happened, which is very different from what you said.
Police officers are too busy with mobile speed controls. They don't (dare) arrest anybody who's foul-mouthing them in their face. They have become laughing stock.
Crime sentences (duration) are deplorable. Solved crime rates are way too low.
The Police manpower is on par with the UK. And the amount of prisoners / 100.000 inhabitants is on par with Germany. See sources in my other comment.
A little dated, but it surely shows a trend which has only gotten worse over the past years.
It has a comparison between The Netherlands and Germany.
Another source: https://translate.google.nl/translate?hl=nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=ht...
The goal should not be to lock people up, the goal should be to prevent crime.
Being an ill-tempered individual doesn't make one a criminal. Nor should it.
People organise neighbourhood watch WhatsApp groups to prevent crime instead of relying on the police to fix things. Within ten years these groups will probably grow into armed and organised right-wing groups. And there's a constant flood of people trying to get into clubs with shooting ranges, the only way to get a gun legally in The Netherlands if you're not in the police or the army.
So people don't trust the government anymore in protecting them and they take rights into their own hands. Not a socialist paradise that's so right and just that nobody commits crimes anymore.
-------
Edit 2: I'm not telling that it's not a safe place. I'm telling that when something does happen you shouldn't rely on the police to fix it.
-------
Thanks for the down votes without knowing the facts.
There are many sources, this is one of the more recent:
https://duitslandinstituut.nl/artikel/10090/opvallende-versc...
WhatsApp neighbourhood patrols:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/02/29/waken-met-whatsapp-rukt...
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/27997...
Apart from that every shooting range has a huge waiting list nowadays. Just pick the ones closest to you.
In all the places I've lived I (and everyone around me) always felt extremely safe.
-----
EDIT: those are some weird sources:
- first link is a dutch website called "Germany institute". It doesn't say anything about 40% non solvency (or 80% solvency in Germany).
- second link talks about how neighbourhood watches have grown five fold, to a whapping 661 watches over 17 million people.
- third link is a belgium website talking about an extreme right winged finnish watch that has been to the netherlands one time.
https://decorrespondent.nl/2038/opheldering-verzocht-acht-op...
But why don't you post some counter information? Or inform yourself while not finding any information that supports your opinion at all.
> second link talks about how neighbourhood watches have grown five fold, to a whapping 661 watches over 17 million people.
You can try to ridicule it but it's not going to change the fact that it's getting really big. Because those watches are the official ones that are registered, not some angry dads from the neighbourhood united in a WhatsApp group.
-----
Not sure why I can't reply to you. But we're not talking about corruption or general safety. We're talking about the police giving you a cold shoulder when something does happen.
https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=174...
> Police response and capabilities are comparable to other Western European countries. Professionalism and competence are high, and corruption and tolerance of corruption are low.
> Crime Rating: Low
> Although rare, violent crime does happen
> travel by road is relatively safe in comparison to some other European countries
> Within ten years these groups will probably grow into armed and organised right-wing groups.
You miss the part where we have very strict gun ownership rules, and very few have guns.
> Thanks for the down votes without knowing the facts.
You are being downvoted because what you provide aren't facts. You linked to a news article about neighbourhood watches, an article about a group of extremists/xenophobes, and an article about Dutch vs German law. None of this proves that The Netherlands is the a "dangerous" country where citizens take matters into their own hands, etc.
True, Germany has about the same amount of police force per capita. It's just spent better.
> it's simply an "add-on" so neighbours can report suspicious behaviour to others.
Why this worries me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
> None of this proves that The Netherlands is the a "dangerous" country
It's also never implied by me.
> where citizens take matters into their own hands
They just need to police themselves a bit where the government fails, right?
What's worrying about that? The neighbourhood watchman was violently attacked and successfully defended himself.
That particular incident seems to demonstrate that the neighbourhood watch existed for a reason.
But witnesses range from unreasonably in favor of the shooter: "Trayvon was reaching for a gun after be loud and beligerent and was shot in clear self defense", all the way to unreasonably in favor of the shot: "Trayvon was shot in cold blood and broad daylight by a bigot and a the shooter was let free because of institutional racism".
To claim you know what happened is extremely showing of your lack of understanding of the situation or of your implicit bias.
The Whatsapp patrol described in the article is completely different from the goon squad you're implying it is. It's mainly an early detection system, people would call the police as soon as they see something happening.
Just to be clear, what percentage of neighbourhood's have WhatApp patrols? I bet it's under 0.1%.
If you feel unsafe in Holland you should be terrified to live in the US:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Netherlands...
I don't care about the US. This story is about The Netherlands and the "miracle" of empty prisons. I don't say you shouldn't feel safe, but I'm telling that things don't seem to be improving at least.
Unless you live in Amsterdam?
So you are not comparing The Netherlands to other countries but instead to it's past self? That isn't clear at all from your post.
And you have evidence that the crime rate is increasing?
I don't mind that people get second chances and help after they were convicted for their crimes, but they are simply not getting arrested in the first place.
Why would I compare The Netherlands to a country that's completely different like the US? That would make no sense. Germany is a very similar country.
> And you have evidence that the crime rate is increasing?
I never said that?
Self-reliance in solving or preventing crimes is increasing.
> We blijven nog even in Münster en Utrecht. Vooral bij geweldscriminaliteit is het contrast pijnlijk: een Nederlandse opheldering van 37 procent tegen een Duitse van 82 procent.
"A bit more about Münster and Utrecht (1). The contrast is especially painful when we compare violent crimes: the Dutch solve 37% while the Germans solve 82%"
Explain that to somebody that got beat up in the streets after a night out for no reason at all. That the police is not doing anything at all to solve it.
1) two cities that are roughly the same size and demographic, so more comparable
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/03/24/een-kaart-om-misdaad-te...
(I'm assuming that you were referring to the percentage given when you asked for data to back "that" up :)
In rural areas people experience more crime than before and the police is not that willing to solve cases.
I have seen the signs for these WhatsApp groups in my own neighbourhood, but I think you're mischaracterizing them. These groups (and the signs that come with them) have existed for decades: "Attentie, buurtpreventie". They're just embracing modern technology. If their formation inevitably lead to armed militias roaming the streets, then we would've seen them by now.
Groups like these crossing the line would be a result of other changes in Dutch society.