Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kaotique | Hacker News Reader

There are a couple reasons why there are so little people in jail in the Netherlands and not all are positive. Crime reporting rate has never been lower. People have very little confidence that reporting a crime will lead to the criminal getting caught or even convicted.

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.

View on HN

> People have very little confidence that reporting a crime will lead to the criminal getting caught

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...

Please reply to your comment and let us know what the outcome is, if you remember too.

I'll do that.

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.

Is commenting still possible on HN after two weeks? At some point the discussion closes, right?

I don't know, but you might be right.

> I'm going and will take my daughter (who's bike it was) there to learn...

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...

Isn't that a pretty good lesson to learn?

just my opinion as a father of a six-year old girl: it is indeed a good lesson to learn--eventually.

Whether it's a good lesson to learn now depends (or at least it would for me) on the child's age.

Agreed. I am if anything overly pessimistic on the world.. but I don't think 6 is the right age for that lesson :)

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".

Good, the judge will probably let you or her say something.

Don't know if its with all cases, but the sentencing is usually in the 2 weeks after the session.

> Our current police and justice department like to do magic with the statistics

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?

> 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.

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?

I'm not saying it's a positive. But the fact that criminals are not put in jail but at home is a major contributor the emptiness of our jails.

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.

Completely agree. I lived in Hungary, where the crime rate is relatively low compared to the whole Europe. But you can't actually go to an open market without securing your pockets. Now I live in Scotland, which amongst the highest crime rate countries in Europe, but it feels much safer to walk through Glasgow than to walk through Budapest.

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.

Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania have something in common when it comes to pickpocket... and overall petty theft.

I'd be more scared to get stabbed in Glasgow than in Amsterdam though.

Hmm, while knife crime maybe more common in Glasgow than anywhere else in western europe it's still rare and mostly restricted to rough areas (i.e. not "took a wrong turn at George Square" but "went deep into a troubled neighbourhood and kept going") and even then you'd probably have to be really looking for trouble or damn unlucky

It's because it's a crime to even carry a butterknife in your backpack.

Could you elaborate what the big European picture is (with stats or arguments that you do find reliable)?

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.

Depends on crime type. Criminals generally get caught because they commit a lot of crime not because the cops put a lot of effort into any one crime.

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.

> How is this number different from other developed nations?

Germany fares much better in this regard, about 56% gets solved I think.

The rates for the Netherlands and Germany appear to be calculated very differently.

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... --

It strikes me as highly unlikely that the 2-3% a previous poster listed for NL en 56% for DE is valid in the sense that if both statements are true, that they are comparing apples to apples.

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.

Some positive contributing factors are:

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.

Out of those solved crimes only a percentage reaches an actual conviction for the criminal.

Well, that's literally true anywhere. Besides, a very high conviction rate indicates an unhealthy judicial system: http://www.economist.com/node/8680941

98% accused of the crime in US plead guilty.

That's not a good thing. It frequently comes down to...

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).

I feel like the only way to solve this is to ensure the plea is within some margin of the actual charges.

We need many times more public defenders so people have representation actually able to spend time on the case.

Even with a competent lawyer, how many will be willing to roll the dice on a trial?

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.

Because: sit in a cell for a year because you don't have $500 for bail... or plead guilty. New York recently took up legislation on this topic after someone spent over a year in jail because they felt innocent, and then killed them self.

How many of those to the original crime though? I've read (this could be wrong) that plea bargaining has become endemic, which makes many of these statistics biased-to-useless.

It's so endemic that plea bargaining is a part of the official process for minor traffic violations. I used to get a lot of speeding tickets and I would always take them to court, because the solicitor would always negotiate just prior to the trail. It usually saves you some money if you do this (depends on the jurisdiction) The process was almost always for the DA or solicitor to recommend you plea guilty or no contest. If you plead guilty, you would not see the judge and you'd get a reduced sentence (typically increased fine, but no points on your license). No contest would have different rules depending on the court, but would also end up better for you in the long run most times.

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.

Remember Aaron Swartz? If keeping some semblance of life respect matters one would better plead guilty and be done with.

On a flip note, any source for that '98%'?

>>It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.<<

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.

In the US at least, community service is typically only an option if:

- 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.

>> if you commit armed robbery...

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.

Armed does not imply gun. It implies weapon of any sort.

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.

The exact wording varies by state in the US, but in my state if you make someone think you're armed, legally speaking you are armed.

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.

Forgot the obligatory:

- You are rich/famous.

Fair or not, I'm not sure how much international support you'll find for the idea of US justice system as a model to follow.

That would depend on what they did and who they are, no? I hope nobody feels a nano-second sorry for a gang member, for example, but I would totally be willing to allow a kid who shoplifted to pay restitution and do community service/house arrest.

Because gang members never end up joining gangs because of dire economic need, nor can they be rehabilitated \s

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 have never felt unsafe in the Netherlands, nor do I consider crime a big problem. This is a n=1 anecdote, but I am perfectly happy with the current system and would consider harsher punishments or longer prison sentences a downgrade.

Completely agree. Have an upvote!

Agree on many points, not all. But most of all I would like to add that the Police has seen so many budget cuts and downsizing that they just don't have the people to do much.

In my city there are no patrols, there is no time to patrol. If there are then it is incidental.

honest questions

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?

How do you call a crime solved if it doesn't result in a conviction?

Criminals often get community service as a punishment, even for relatively serious offences.

Are you saying that the crime rate isn't actually low?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com