We are witnessing a remarkable trend in the youth crime in the Netherlands. A spectacular crime drop is accompanied by growing concerns about the serious nature of youth crimes and young people on a pathway to become hardened criminals at an early age. In this article, we focus on the rise of young offenders in organized drug crime in the Netherlands. We describe some of the features of these young offenders, highlighting their intelligent, strategic and professional behavior. Furthermore, we signal the development and the (territorial) violence of the (youth) groups these young offenders are usually embedded in. In light of these developments, we argue that there is a need for more specialism amongst law enforcement and judicial authorities to identify and deal with these young and potential serious criminals.

Suspects with a Mild Intellectual Disability (hereafter: MID) are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Is the right to a fair trial of these vulnerable suspects sufficiently guaranteed in the modernized Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure? To this end, it is first of all important that the MID is recognized by legal professionals in the criminal justice system. In this way, the suspect with an MID can be treated and interrogated in the right way, which can, for example, prevent making a false statement. Secondly, it is important that the compensatory and remedial measures that professionals may take according to the modernization are clarified. The professionals should know in which phase of the criminal proceeding they should apply certain measures. Finally, the question arises whether the addition of a lawyer is the most important measure to compensate the suspect with an MID for his disability.

The imposition or extension of a tbs-order requires that the offender is dangerous. This article reports on a quantitative analysis of case law about whether judges provide reasons in their judgment when establishing that an offender is dangerous. The analysis shows that this often is not the case. For example, only one third of the examined judgments explain why the legal criterion for dangerousness is met. The author recommends that judges more often provide reasons for their decision about the dangerousness of the offender.

Does a better quality of arguing by a criminal judge why he/she metes out a certain punishment enhance the public’s understanding and endorsement of criminal verdicts? A sample of 235 Dutchmen got presented two verdicts in a within person design, one with a well motivated meting out of punishment, one with a defective motivation. Subjects reported on understanding and endorsement. Better motivated verdicts turn out to be better understood and are more endorsed.

In the Netherlands, domestic violence cases are often heard in criminal court by a single judge. In these cases usually the family is usually confronted with multiple problems related to divorce or separation, child protection issues, financial problems, psychological problems or addiction and aggression problems that can lead to various legal proceedings with different judges. The District Court of Rotterdam has started a pilot ‘integrated approach to domestic violence’. In this paper results of the pilot evaluation are presented in relation to recent developments of the judiciary to focus on effective problem solving courts.