The Netherlands Closes Prisons Because It Doesn't Have Enough Prisoners
fastcoexist.com
fastcoexist.com
Many crimes are not solved. The crime solve rate is about 2-3% which means out of that small number of actual reported crimes only a marginal amounts get solved.
Out of those solved crimes only a percentage reaches an actual conviction for the criminal.
It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.
Lastly. Our current police and justice department like to do magic with the statistics to make everything seem like a colourful rainbow world where no crime happens at all.
How is this number different from other developed nations?
> It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.
If recidivism is low, how is that possibly not a positive?
If people aren't in jail it doesn't mean there is no crime.
Many crimes are committed by other Europeans and Dutch criminals who commit crimes in Germany across the border. For instance ramming or exploding ATMs in Germany by Dutch organised crime happens a lot.
When looking at crime rates and amount of people in jail statistics per country are very unreliable and give the wrong impression when you should look at the big European picture.
This is because every single small pickpocket is reported and usually caught. Not to mention crime definitions like "breach of peace", with cases like "shouting in public" or "pointed his finger on walker". Police would laugh on a reports about these in Hungary.
I didn't like Amsterdam (or what I have seen of it) though, same insecure feeling.
As it is, I'm skeptical. I've spent about half my life living outside of 'Western Europe' and much of the other half in Holland. My experience at least fits the statistics: Holland is one of the safest places I've ever lived, and I usually lived (and spent a chunk of my leisure time) in the 'bad parts of town'.
With a few tiny exceptions, there are very few areas I can think of that I would avoid at night at all cost, for example. I'd go anywhere in Amsterdam at any time of the night, including the bad parts. And many of my female friends, who I'd say more at risk in general, would say the same.
Consider speeding, on any given trip doing 25 over is unlikely to get caught. If you do 25 over on every trip then you will get caught. Sure, murder is investigated but many a drive by in the US goes unsolved.
Germany fares much better in this regard, about 56% gets solved I think.
The German rate ("Aufklärungsquote") (percentage of solved crimes) includes cases that, according to the police, were sufficiently looked into. They don't care whether or not a case went before a judge or not. Fun fact: The rate can even surpass 100% since its sets solved crimes and reported crimes of one period in relation. That is, crimes solved from previous periods inflate the percentage.
http://www.krimlex.de/artikel.php?BUCHSTABE=&KL_ID=23
As for the Netherlands, their rate of solved crimes in indeed quite low (< 15 % in 2002). However, they also state that in many cases they don't even try to solve a crime because of a lack of priority(?) and missing initial suspicion (2/3 of all complaints to the police!)
https://www.uni-muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl-wissen/politik... --
These kind of numbers are hard to interpret anyhow; they're so dependent on methodology that I'd wager their primary purpose is to influence opinion one way or the other, alas.
Well, that's literally true anywhere. Besides, a very high conviction rate indicates an unhealthy judicial system: http://www.economist.com/node/8680941
Plead guilty to a misdemeanor and a few months behind bars.
Or, go to trial, face a felony charge, with increased risks to later life (felony = more jail-time, harder to find a job, etc).
Take a fairly "common" drunk in public... should be a night in jail and fine, or similar. But, a poorly trained cop was involved, so they're now adding resisting arrest (another misdemeanor) AND assaulting a police officer (felony with mandatory minimum sentencing).
Now, instead of fighting the original misdemeanor on it's merits, you're pleading guilty to it to avoid a potentially life-ruining felony.
The one time I please innocent (I truly felt I was), I ended up with 6 months probation, 2x the fine, and double the points on my license. In the end, the cost was well over double what I would have paid if I had just not contested and dealt with the solicitor. The judge even commented during the proceedings how taking such a simple case of speeding in front of the court wastes everyone's time and I should have been ashamed.
BTW, I was contesting the case, because there was no speed limit sign posted where I was pulled over. Evidently there had been construction completed recently which changed the number of lanes and intersections. This caused the county to reduce the speed limit, but they failed to install a new sign. The old one was removed during the construction.
That sign was never installed. It only got fixed after additional changes were made several years later.
On a flip note, any source for that '98%'?
But that's a good thing unless you consider sending people to the mines and keep them locked behind bars for years a better alternative.
- It's your first offense
- You more-or-less admit to the crime (not necessarily meaning you turned yourself in, but you didn't go through a trial while maintaining your innocence the whole time)
- You are clearly remorseful
- The crime is minor and non-violent
- The odds are seen as low or very low that you'd do it again
There are exceptions of course, but if you commit armed robbery, I don't think many people would feel community service is a just sentence. Nor would shoplifting if it's the 5th time you've been caught.
There are significantly less guns available compared to the US, so armed robberies are likely heavily punished too.
While I don't say all sentences should be light as a feather, there are a lot of 'jails' (especially in Norway) where the inmates can go home for the evening or weekend.
I'm not even sure if just the implied threat of a weapon elevates it to armed robbery. But if you threaten somebody with a knife or club, I think you still get charged with armed robbery.
To use an apocryphal/urban legend example, if you stick a candy bar in a sweatshirt and point it at a cashier, that will receive the same punishment as if you pointed a loaded handgun at them.
- You are rich/famous.
Sure, "community service" might be a poor way to rehabilitate a long-term gang member, and some more extensive process might be needed to re-introduce them to society. But I wouldn't take it as far as saying nobody should ever feel sorry for them or that justice should seek to punish them instead of rehabilitating them. In fact, it seems to me like a tracking bracelet would be quite reasonable at some point in this process, since it would make them a liability for other gang members and thus help keep them away from that environment.
I thought that way too, but it's not all bad. I was recently positively surprised when the police actually investigated a bike theft that I reported (online) and caught and prosecuted the thief! Court session is next month, I'm going and will take my daughter (who's bike it was) there to learn...
I actually expect it to be disappointing. I have applied for damage compensation, but I would be very surprised to get anything back, to be frank. There will not be any jailtime for sure. Still, I've been surprised in this case already, so who knows.
Risky, as she may learn "The system doesn't care about me, and due to a small technical glitch will let a guilty person walk free"
Don't envy having to explain that one...
Whether it's a good lesson to learn now depends (or at least it would for me) on the child's age.
Learn cops are your friend as a kid. It might help them someday (lost at store etc. etc). Then when they start to drive, maybe it is time for a youtube video on "no, don't consent to a search of your car even if you have nothing to hide - here is why".
Don't know if its with all cases, but the sentencing is usually in the 2 weeks after the session.
In my city there are no patrols, there is no time to patrol. If there are then it is incidental.
I suspect you are doing the same: "2-3%" probably does include everything: Scratches on parked cars, lost passports or IDs that are reported stolen instead of "lost" and so on (read: all that is reported as a crime for convenience or for insurance claims).
And I fail to see the negative reasons you hint at in your opening sentence: Should people be convicted just to reach some quota or only when the case is proven? Should people go to prison for minor crimes or should they be able to keep their job by wearing a electronic bracelet and being restricted to their house and way to/from their work place?
Crime is decreasing. Violent crime is decreasing.
Electronic ankle bracelet house arrests are both a cost saving measure (~50k euro a year per person) and contribute to rehabilitation.
These rehabilitation programs in the Netherlands are top-notch, lessening the recidivism rates.
Progressive (hard) drug laws target dealers and manufacturers over (recreative) users. Hard drug addicts have (sponsored) access to rehab programs, also inside prisons.
No, or little, privatization, makes prisons focus on quality and long-term efficiency, not quantity and short-term profits.
1. does a low crime reporting rate indicate distrust of the justice system? I can imagine that it might also indicate tight community cohesion.
2. does a low crime solve rate indicate ineffectiveness of the justice system? does this figure arise from "cold" police investigations alone, or are there other factors involved?
3. does a low conviction rate indicate a problem with legal frameworks or prosecutors? why are so many defendants acquitted?
4. does a low incarceration rate indicate a problem with sentencing guidelines? how does this correlate with recidivism?
On technical forums you sometimes see loads of people complaining that no action is being taken, despite pretty much giving police everything they need (all details: persons full name, bank account details, etc). It often takes place on e.g. Marktplaats (Dutch Ebay-like website).
Not sure if it's truly hard to prove internet fraud, are understaffed or they just don't care enough. Anyway, seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or two for criminals. Even tho this person didn't look like a particularly intelligent individual or even a hardcore criminal, he got away with many scams and probably made quite a lot of money in a short period of time.
Otherwise, 157 out of 50.000 cases of "internet fraud" might be just average.
Only criminals that get caught end up in jail.. Criminals who do not get caught are criminals nevertheless.. And they stil do criminal things.
Correlation =/= Causation.
This is exactly the same as the crime rate. Less reported figures doesn't mean crime rate has gone down. For that one I gave elsewhere their own investigation which shows that crime rate went up.
Most murders are not of the sort where it's unclear if it was murder at all. Someone's stabbed, beaten, shot, etc.
Homicides generally, maybe, are harder to fudge (especially homicides + suicides as a single group) but breaking down into specific crimes (and non-crimes; not all homicide is criminal) certainly can be fudged.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/01/a-low-crime-ra...
"A confidential report by the police and public prosecution office states that official figures do not reflect the real volume of crime in the Netherlands,"
A more extensive Dutch article (referenced in above): http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/39681/nbsp/article/detail/4447567/...
That's the same in every country.
The only interesting question is whether the netherlands have any higher crime rate, which I don't think is the case (compare to e.g. Britain).
If they don't arrest some guys doing some petty small stuff, it's no big deal.
I have read here, sometime, from someone, crime statistics are based on a survey in the UK ( instead of relying on the police ).
Both. There are official statistics from the police and Crown Prosecution Service about number of cases reported, investigated, charged and outcomes, but there is separately a survey, which gives important additional information about whether or not people feel it worth reporting crime.
i.e. 'have you been robbed in the last month or last year' etc.
A minister recently resigned because they lied about it:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/27/dutch-minister-resigns-ov...
> Closing prisons is good news in many ways. It means less money wasted, and signals that there is less crime. It also leaves empty facilities that can be repurposed, like an old jail in Colorado which was turned into a transitional housing facility for the homeless, with a focus on homeless veterans.