This article introduces and evaluates three different specialty court programs that are being enacted in a large Texas county to locally fight the growing tide of unsustainably high incarceration rates that is sweeping the United States. The study provides a brief description of the general dilemma of the American criminal justice system that, as a result of the widespread fear of crime and a mainstream news arena that favors grossly simplistic sound-byte-compatible get-tough policies, has become so immensely punitive and overburdening on public budgets that it is de facto no longer sustainable and in desperate need of immediate change. Faced with a situation of political stalemate on state and federal levels, county judges in Texas and other states are taking it upon themselves to bring about change in their local jurisdictions. Through newly designed specialty courts models, they seek to divert special-needs offenders away from the default incarceration track. The article evaluates the overall effectiveness of these new sentencing alternatives and identifies specific areas that need further improvement.

Today’s risk based criminal justice policy leaves but little room to tune sentencing decisions to the individual offender’s mental capacities. As a result, sanctioning has become one-sided, being directed towards retribution. However, in the long run such a non-reciprocal concept of sanctioning, implying a denial of the need to facilitate rehabilitation, weakens the social fabric. Moreover, it holds a denial of citizenship towards (mentally ill) offenders. For the past decades, restorative justice has offered alternative solutions to deal with delinquency. Using informal procedures, taking into account peculiarities of the case, including the offender’s mental capacities, offenders are invited to take accountability for wrongful acts. A similar approach has been introduced within the field of mental health services, including the sector of the forensic mental health care. In response to the popular social biological model, a model of restorative treatment has been introduced, implying treatment to be directed towards reintegration, requiring active participation of the patient/offender. Bearing in mind the communalities between both models, we explore the potential of such a restorative citizenship based approach to better the integration of mentally disturbed offenders.

The presumption of innocence (PoI) is considered to be an important principle for regulating pre-trial detention. The idea is that pre-trial detention should be a last resort. However, pre-trial detention practice demonstrates that pre-trial detention does not function on the basis of a presumption of innocence but rather from a presumption of guilt and dangerousness. It must be concluded that, with regard to pre-trial detention, the PoI has a rather limited normative effect.

Antony Duff proposes a comprehensive concept of the presumption of innocence, covering the period before, during and after a criminal process, both in an official (state vs. individual) and a non-official, civic sense. By that broad usage, the concept of presumption of innocence is getting blurred and risks losing its contours. I therefore suggest to keep separate matters separate. The presumption of innocence in the narrow sense that I suggest applies only where there exists a suspicion that an individual has committed a criminal offence. The important function of the presumption of innocence in that situation is to prevent an over-extension of state power against the individual under suspicion before that suspicion has been confirmed to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. A general presumption that all people abide by the law at all times is neither warranted nor necessary. It is not warranted because experience tells us that many people break some laws sometimes. And it is not necessary because a system of civil liberties is sufficient to protect us against official or social overreach based on a suspicion that we may commit crimes.

This paper explores the roles that the presumption of innocence (PoI) can play beyond the criminal trial, in other dealings that citizens may have with the criminal law and its officials. It grounds the PoI in a wider notion of the civic trust that citizens owe each other, and that the state owes its citizens: by attending to the roles that citizens may find themselves playing in relation to the criminal law (such roles as suspect, defendant, convicted offender and ‘ex-offender’), we can see both how a PoI protects us, beyond the confines of the trial, against various kinds of coercion, and how that PoI is modified or qualified as we acquire certain roles. To develop and illustrate this argument, I pay particular attention to the roles of defendant (both during the trial and while awaiting trial) and of ‘ex-offender,’ and to the duties that such roles bring with them.

Psychology, psychiatry, criminology and sociology provide scientific knowledge for the forensic psychiatry about disorders, the behaviour of offenders, offenses and the influence of the environment. In recent decades the What Works principles (risk, need, responsivity) became theoretical cornerstones of forensic psychiatry. However, additional theories have gained popularity: models addressing protective factors and the well-being of the delinquent. As in general psychiatry neurobiological research about the relationship between the brain and behaviour is influencing forensic psychiatry more and more. The translation of these results into regular assessment and treatment seems a matter of time. The development of a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery is an attempt to bridge the gap between this basic neurobiological-neurocognitive research and forensic psychiatric practice. This article describes the influence of the neurocognitive, neuropsychological knowledge in general and in particular the construction of this battery and its usefulness in daily practice. Whether this development is the beginning of a fundamental paradigm shift or an addition to the current approach, remains to be seen.

Over the past couple of decades, the Netherlands unmistakably has developed into a Garlandian style culture of control. A distinct feature of this Dutch culture of control is the increasing interconnectedness between crime and migration in both public and political discourse. As a result of the growing urge to control potential dangerous others, various stop & search powers have been implemented. Besides by their proactive nature, these powers are defined by the fact that they give a fair amount of discretion to individual police officers in deciding who to stop. In this article, while drawing on criminological, sociological and social psychological literature on stereotyping and the rise of a crime complex, the authors will argue that the structural and cultural changes fuelling the emergence of a the typical Dutch culture of control might also affect the individual choices made by police officers in such a way that it fosters ethnic profiling.

As we move towards constructing narratives regarding the future outlook of global governance, constitutionalisation among them, the hope is that whatever shape this world order takes it will, somehow, forestall or hinder the possibility of a hegemonic order. This article tries to deconstruct the notion of hegemony and claims that as it currently stands it is useless in doing its critical work since every successful narrative will end up being hegemonic because it will employ the ‘hegemonic technique’ of presenting a particular value (or value system), a particular viewpoint, as universal or at least applying to those who do not share it. The only way for a narrative in this discourse not to be hegemonic would be for it to be either truly universal and find a perspective that stems from nowhere and everywhere – a divine perspective – or purely descriptive; the first being an impossibility for fallible beings and the other not worth engaging with since it has nothing to say about how things should be structured or decided in a specific situation.

In 1870 in the Netherlands the death penalty was replaced by the sanction nearest to that effect: lifelong imprisonment. For the government though this penalty was acceptable only in connection with the possibility of mercy. The sanction was to be executed humanely and should not result in torture. The way the sanction was executed since, the administration developed a policy of mercy taking into account the devastating effects of the sanction. This policy resulted in mental care for the convicted and his release after approximately twenty years imprisonment. More than hundred years later, about 2004, the policy of mercy changed. Since then, according to the responsible ministers, life imprisonment should end by the onset of death. In this article the practice under the old and the new policy is illustrated by a case study. The conclusion is that like the death penalty lifelong imprisonment corrodes the prestige of the State.

Life imprisonment is difficult to define. Sentences that are not called life imprisonment may also be indefinite sentences of detention which may result in the detention of offenders in prison until they die there. Even where a sentence is called ‘life imprisonment’ it may be difficult to ascertain for how long the offender will actually be held and what criteria will be applied to considering his eventual release. This paper sketches some recent developments in respect of indeterminate sentences that are not called life imprisonment, even though they amount to it in practice. It then turns to the question of life sentences that are imposed without provision for any fixed period after which they should be reconsidered. Questions are raised about the extent to which such sentences are acceptable in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, particularly in instances where at sentence there is an indication that the offenders may not be considered for release at all. It is argued that human rights law is moving towards requiring that all persons sentenced to life imprisonment should have a reasonable prospect of release. Given the widespread support for life imprisonment this paper seeks to raise some human rights concerns that arise with the use of this sentence. The concerns are essentially twofold. First, the sentence may be imposed in instances where it would be disproportionate punishment to do so. Secondly, the procedures for its implementation, in particular those that relate to the potential release of persons serving life sentences, may not be adequate to meet the requirement of a realistic prospect of release.

This article focuses on the ‘de iure’ and ‘de facto’ possibilities in Dutch penal law to reduce a life sentence. The question is whether the current legal framework offers sufficient perspective to life prisoners as required by the European Court of Human Rights. It also addresses the disadvantages of the current procedures. The authors argue that it is desirable that a legal possibility for release on probation of life prisoners is introduced in the Netherlands. They will set out a bill written by the NGO ‘Forum Levenslang’ that would make this possible.

This essay examines imprisoned felons’ perspectives and interpretations of ‘doing life’. Prisoners’ and ex-prisoners’ perspectives on the pros and cons of life imprisonment were documented over four decades of ethnographic research in prisons and on urban streets. The author’s research was conducted as a participant observer of street criminals and observing participant in federal prisons. Interviews with violent convicted felons in state and federal prisons and persistent criminals with histories of imprisonment reveal what it means to ‘do time’. Prisoners’ enculturation accommodates their adjustment to prison life and ability to negotiate daily prison life, but prison culture’s and prison programs’ inability to alter the nature of violent criminals pose a continuous threat to the population at large. Life imprisonment benefits prisoners’ physical and social health and protects communities by keeping violent criminals imprisoned.

Some ten years ago, victim-offender mediation was introduced for the first time in EU-legislation through article 10 of the 2001 framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. In 2012 this framework decision was replaced by a more extensive directive establishing minimum standards for victims of crime. This article examines the position of restorative justice in this new legal instrument. The outcome is mixed. The emphasis on safeguards in case restorative justice is applied is a positive move towards good practices, but it is disappointing that a right to access restorative justice services was not adopted.

The diversity of institutional contexts within which restorative justice has been implemented worldwide has raised the question whether this aspect may have an influence on the experience of victims of crime. Some are of the opinion that certain institutional settings (such as probation) could relegate victims, once more, to a secondary place. This article discusses the results of a two-year research project (2011-2012) that addresses this question. One single questionnaire was administrated in three different countries (Netherlands, Austria and Finland) whose mediation programmes differ in terms of the institutional setting in which mediation is implemented. Our findings suggest that the institutional context does not matter for victims’ levels of satisfaction, but it does in terms of victims’ expectations and experiences.

Immigration detention is formally not a punishment, but governments do seem to use it to deter irregular migrants from staying in the territory. This study explores whether and how practices of immigration detention in the Netherlands affect detainees’ decision-making processes regarding return and result in ‘specific deterrence’. 81 unauthorized irregular migrants were interviewed in immigration detention and their casefiles were examined. We find evidence for a limited deterrence effect: a minority of the respondents indeed wanted to return to their countries of origin in order to end their (repeated) stay in immigration detention. For some respondents the detention experience contributed to a desire to migrate from the Netherlands to a different European country. We go into the relevance of these findings for the continuing societal debate on the use of immigration detention.

Annually hundreds of victims make use of their right to speak in court. Victims often expect this will result in more punitive sentences. According to judges this is unlikely. This experiment among law students examines the influence of victim impact statements (VIS) on the sentencing outcome. Furthermore the effect of how the statement is delivered is examined. Is there a difference between the VIS as document in the case file and one delivered by the victim in court? Does it matter if the victim still has visible injuries? Study findings indicate that neither the presence of a VIS, nor the mode of delivery and visible injuries affect sentence length.

Victims of crime entertain various wishes regarding the criminal justice system. This paper present the results of a study that made use of vignettes. Victim wishes regarding the goals of punishment were examined, and the relation with degree offender intent (intent, negligence) has been established. The results show that when the perpetrator acted intentionally, victims have a greater wish for retribution and the other punishment goals, but they have a smaller need for restoration. Victims wish to be compensated and to receive apologies from the offender, but generally are reluctant to meet with the perpetrator in person.

Under Dutch law, convicted criminals have the opportunity to request a pardon to cancel, reduce or alter their punishment. Pardoning is an important institute to guarantee fair and reasonable execution of sentences. However, little is known about the everyday practice of pardoning in the Netherlands. The current study sets out the legal framework of the institute of pardoning, as well as changes in pardoning law and policy. We demonstrate that over the period 1990-2011 both the amount of pardoning requests and decisions have decreased dramatically, and that the period 1995-2004 is characterized by an upsurge of conditional pardons at the expense of both unconditional pardons and pardon denials. We try to explain these developments in the light of changes in pardoning law and policy, prison overcrowding, increases in life sentences and of royal celebrations. We conclude that we cannot fully explain the developments in the pardoning practice and that better registration of the pardoning requests and grants are needed for a better understanding of the pardoning practice.

Responsibility of the prisoner for his own rehabilitation is a central element of ‘Modernising Imprisonment’, the masterplan that aims to reform the execution of the prison sentence in the Netherlands. The Secretary of Justice strives for an individual approach based on the points of departure of the Life Course Approach in criminology. This method is designed in different ways. A central element is that rehabilitation will only be offered in the near future to prisoners that show responsibility for their rehabilitation. Based on this starting point, a far-reaching system of advancing and degrading is introduced. Prisoners can deserve freedoms by showing responsible behaviour, but loose them again in case of irresponsible or unmotivated conduct. Three objections against this aspect of Modernising Imprisonment are discussed. First, the rehabilitation principle itself does not allow for such a far-reaching exclusion of categories of prisoners. Second, the high demands put on prisoners are not realistic given the characteristics of the prison population. Third, the assumption that a strict system of advancing and degrading will increase the effectiveness of sentencing is not well founded and cannot be derived from research.