The UK government has embarked on an ambitious programme to reform the English and Welsh probation sector. Key to these reforms has been ‘marketisation’ involving Payment by Results. More recently the devolution of justice has become a key theme. This paper describes key reforms that have taken place since 2010 and sets out evidence for their effectiveness. Currently, the available evidence is limited, but more evidence is available from other sectors where similar models have also been used. This evidence base is discussed with particular reference to the potential for the reforms to promote innovation.

Hoewel handhaving van de in 2001 geïntroduceerde strafbaarstelling van buitenlandse ambtelijke omkoping in eerste instantie uitbleef, hebben grensoverschrijdende corruptieschandalen inmiddels tot de hoogste schikkingen in de Nederlandse geschiedenis geleid. In deze bijdrage wordt aandacht besteed aan de overeenkomsten tussen de aanpak van buitenlandse corruptie door Nederland en de handhaving van de FCPA in de VS. Als de Nederlandse schikkingen onder de loep worden genomen, blijkt dat er niet alleen wat betreft de afdoeningsmodaliteit zelf, maar tevens ten aanzien van de voorwaarden bij de schikkingen gelijkenissen te ontdekken zijn. Anders dan in de VS zijn deze voorwaarden echter niet in het beleid van het OM terug te vinden.

This paper provides first of all the introduction to this special issue on ‘Legal constraints on the indeterminate control of “dangerous” sex offenders in the community: A European comparative and human rights perspective’. The issue is the outcome of a study that aims at finding the way legal control can not only be an instrument but also be a controller of social control. It is explained what social control is and how the concept of moral panic plays a part in the fact that sex offenders seem to be the folk devils of our time and subsequently pre-eminently the target group of social control at its strongest. Further elaboration of the methodology reveals why focussing on post-sentence (indeterminate) supervision is relevant, as there are hardly any legal constraints in place in comparison with measures of preventive detention. Therefore, a comparative approach within Europe is taken on the basis of country reports from England and Wales, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. In the second part of the paper, the comparative analysis is presented. Similar shifts in attitudes towards sex offenders have led to legislation concerning frameworks of supervision in all countries but in different ways. Legal constraints on these frameworks are searched for in legal (sentencing) theory, the principles of proportionality and least intrusive means, and human rights, mainly as provided in the European Convention on Human Rights to which all the studied countries are subject. Finally, it is discussed what legal constraints on the control of sex offenders in the community are (to be) in place in European jurisdictions, based on the analysis of commonalities and differences found in the comparison.

This article explores the legal constraints imposed on the rising number of so-called ‘dangerous’ sex offenders in England and Wales, in particular once they have been released from prison into the community. The main methods of constraint are strict licence conditions, Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and civil protective orders such as Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. ‘Control’ in the community is thus widespread, but is difficult to assess whether it is either effective or necessary without a great deal more research and analysis. Post-sentence ‘punishment’ has been largely ignored by both academic lawyers and criminologists. The article concludes that financial austerity might prove to be as important as the human rights agenda in curbing the disproportionate use of powers of control.

This article presents an overview of the legal regime provided in the Spanish system of criminal sanctions regarding the control of dangerous sex offenders in the community. It focuses on the introduction, in 2010, of a post-prison safety measure named supervised release. We describe the context of its introduction in the Spanish Criminal Code, considering the influence of societal upheaval concerning dangerous sex offenders in its development, and also the historical and theoretical features of the Spanish system of criminal sanctions. We also analyse the legal framework of supervised release, the existing case law about it and how the legal doctrine has until now assessed this measure. After this analysis, the main aim of this article consists in evaluating the effectiveness and the proportionality of the measure, according to the principle of minimal constraints and the rehabilitative function of the criminal sanctions in Spanish law, stated in Article 25.2 of the Spanish Constitution.

After release from prison or a custodial preventive institution, offenders may come under supervision in Germany, which means that their conduct is controlled for a period of up to five years or even for life by a judicial supervising authority. Supervision is terminated if it can be expected that even in the absence of further supervision the released person will not commit any further offences. From the theoretical point of view, supervision is not considered a form of punishment in Germany, but a preventive measure that is guided by the principle of proportionality. After a presentation of the German twin track system of criminal sanctions and a glimpse at sentencing theory, the capacity of the principle of proportionality to guide and control judicial decisions in the field of preventive sanctions is discussed. The human rights perspective plays only a minor role in the context of supervision in Germany.

In the Netherlands, the legal possibilities for post-custodial supervision have been extended considerably in recent years. A currently passed law aims to further increase these possibilities specifically for dangerous (sex) offenders. This law consists of three separate parts that may all result in life-long supervision. In the first two parts, the supervision is embedded in the conditional release after either a prison sentence or the safety measure ‘ter beschikking stelling’ (TBS). This paper focuses on the third part of the law, which introduces an independent supervisory safety measure as a preventive continuation of both a prison sentence and the TBS measure. Inevitably, this new independent sanction raises questions about legitimacy and necessity, on which this paper reflects from a human rights perspective. Against the background of the existing Dutch penal law system, the content of the law is thoroughly assessed in view of the legal framework of the Council of Europe and the legal principles of proportionality and less restrictive means. In the end, we conclude that the supervisory safety measure is not legitimate nor necessary (yet). Apart from the current lack of (empirical evidence of) necessity, we state that there is a real possibility of an infringement of Article 5(4) ECHR and Article 7 ECHR, a lack of legitimising supervision ‘gaps’ in the existing penal law system, and finally a lack of clear legal criteria. Regardless of the potential severity of violent (sex) offenses, to simply justify this supervisory safety measure on the basis of ‘better safe than sorry’ is not enough.

France literally ‘discovered’ sexual abuse following neighbour Belgium’s Dutroux case in the late 1990s. Since then, sex offenders have been the focus of politicians, media and law-makers’ attention. Further law reforms have aimed at imposing mandatory supervision and treatment, and in rare cases, preventive detention. The legal framework for mandatory supervision and detention is rather complex, ranging from a mixed sentence (custodial and mandatory supervision and treatment upon release or as a stand-alone sentence) to so-called ‘safety measures’, which supposedly do not aim at punishing an offence, but at protecting society. The difference between the concepts of sentences and safety measures is nevertheless rather blurry. In practice, however, courts have used safety measures quite sparingly and have preferred mandatory supervision as attached to a sentence, notably because it is compatible with cardinal legal principles. Procedural constraints have also contributed to this limited use. Moreover, the type of supervision and treatment that can thus be imposed is virtually identical to that of ordinary probation. It is, however, noteworthy that a higher number of offenders with mental health issues who are deemed ‘dangerous’ are placed in special psychiatric units, something that has not drawn much attention on the part of human rights lawyers.

In dit artikel zijn de mogelijkheden van rechterlijke controle op de afdoening buiten geding in strafzaken onderzocht. Gepleit wordt voor een aparte raadkamerprocedure voor hoge en bijzondere transacties, waarbij toetsingscriteria werden ontleend aan de jurisprudentie van het EHRM en de internationale straftribunalen. De raadkamer toetst de overeengekomen transactie aan drie criteria. Ten eerste of de verdachte de transactie vrijwillig heeft geaccepteerd. Ten tweede of de verdachte voldoende geïnformeerd is over de procedurele gevolgen en over het bewijs dat tegen hem vergaard is. Ten derde toetst de raadkamer of er prima facie voldoende bewijsmateriaal in het dossier voorhanden is. Een door de raadkamer in het openbaar uitgesproken gemotiveerde beschikking maakt controle mogelijk op het overeenkomen van hoge en bijzondere transacties.

The editorial introduction to this special issue on street-level bureaucracy (36 years after the publication of Michael Lipsky’s book) draws attention to the important role of frontline workers in the implementation of policy in practice. The two narratives as distinguished by Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2000) – that of government as an institution and that of the frontline workers themselves – are discussed in the light of the use of discretionary power by the frontline workers. The various dilemmas that the frontline worker encounters while doing so are briefly introduced and the role of the emergence of New Public Management and the resulting public-private partnerships since the eighties discussed.

Studies indicated that detainees are not always allocated to treatment programs based on official guidelines. Street-level bureaucracy theory suggests that this is because government employees do not always perform policies as prescribed. This study aimed to assess whether this also applies to the allocation of offenders to treatment in Dutch penitentiary institutions. This was studied among a group of 541 male prisoners who participated in the Recidivism Reduction program. The results showed that official policy guidelines were, in most cases, not leading when referring detainees to behavioral interventions. Instead, treatment referrals were influenced by a broad range of risk factors, as well as the length of an offender’s sentence.

Quantitative empirical research into legal decisions must be conducted using statistical tools that are appropriate for the data involved. Court decisions are one example of a domain where the data is intrinsically hierarchical (i.e., multilevel), since decisions are made on individual cases by decision-makers in courts located across geographical (or jurisdictional) areas. Past research into court decisions has often either neglected higher level variables or incorrectly used single-level statistical models to analyze multilevel data. The lack of a clear understanding about when and why multilevel statistical models are required may have contributed to this situation. In this paper, we identify the problems of estimating single-level models on hierarchically structured data, and consider the advantages of conducting multilevel analyses under these circumstances. We use the example of criminal sentencing research to illustrate the arguments for the use of multilevel models and against a single-level approach. We also highlight some issues to be addressed in future sentencing studies.

This article examines the main assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of case study method in legal studies. It considers the importance of research design, including the crucial roles of the academic literature review, the research question and the use of rival theories to develop hypotheses and the practice of identifying the observable implications of those hypotheses. It considers the selection of data sources and modes of analysis to allow for valid analytical inferences to be drawn in respect of them. In doing so it considers, in brief, the importance of case study selection and variations such as single or multi case approaches. Finally it provides thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses associated with undertaking socio-legal and comparative legal research via a case study method, addressing frequent stumbling blocks encountered by legal researchers, as well as ways to militate them. It is written with those new to the method in mind.

In 2012, China revised its Criminal Procedure Law (2012 CPL). One of the major changes is its official approval of the use of victim-offender reconciliation, or ‘criminal reconciliation’ in certain public prosecution cases. This change, on the one hand, echoes the Confucian doctrine that favours harmonious inter-personal relationships and mediation, while, on the other hand, it deviates from the direction of legal reforms dating from the 1970s through the late 1990s. Questions have emerged concerning not only the cause of this change in legal norms but also the proper position of criminal reconciliation in the current criminal justice system in China. The answers to these questions largely rely on understanding the role of traditional informal dispute resolution as well as its interaction with legal norms. Criminal reconciliation in ancient China functioned as a means to centralise imperial power by decentralizing decentralising its administration. Abolishing or enabling such a mechanism in law is merely a small part of the government’s strategy to react to political or social crises and to maintain social stability. However, its actual effect depends on the vitality of Confucianism, which in turn relies on the economic foundation and corresponding structure of society.

On July 1st 2016 a law entered into force that gives the victim or survivors of serious crimes the right to speak unrestrictedly in court. Where the victim or survivors used to be only permitted to make a statement on the consequences of the crime for them, the recent amendment of the law permits them to speak about the evidence, the legal qualification of the crime, the culpability of the offender and the appropriate punishment as well. Discussions on the introduction or extension of the victim’s right to speak mainly focused on the consequences of victim statements on the procedural consequences and on the consequences for the victim. Little attention is paid to the consequences for the offender. This article reports the findings of a systematic literature review on the relation between a victim statement and the imposed punishment. The findings from the American studies show that a victim statement aggravates sentencing outcomes. How desirable is that? For answering that question, more research is needed, which the legislator has not wanted to wait for.

The potential perils of robots and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI) have been a subject for discussion since the 1950s. Nevertheless it seems that society is still not prepared for the great impact of the rapid advancement of AI in the last decennium and the many ethical dilemmas involved. How can moral, social and legal values be integrated in the designing process of AI technologies? Is it imaginable that these AI systems would ever be considered as ethical entities? How to control these systems? The authors argue that we should not only analyze these problems, but also reflect on ethics itself. AI has the potential to change the way we live and work. But it is important to introduce restrictions and controls to guarantee our freedom, autonomy and fundamental human rights.

The image that criminal enforcement of organized crime is difficult, is commonly reflected in the media and popular debate. Commentators often argue that organized crime is punished less severely than possible, due to the complexity of the offences, time constraints, and the increased interconnectedness between legal and illegal activities, which creates difficulties to find sufficient evidence to convict offenders. Using data from the Dutch Organized Crime Monitor, this article focuses on the ways in which offenders of organized crime are ‘treated’ by the criminal justice system and on the discrepancies between demanded sanctions and the actual sanctions executed in cases of organized crime.