In 1990 Herman Franke’s masterly dissertation Twee eeuwen gevangen. Misdaad en straf in Nederland was published. An abbreviated version appeared in English in 1995: The emancipation of prisoners: A socio-historical analysis of the Dutch prison experience, awarded best foreign study by the American Society of Criminology. Franke analyzes the developments in the Dutch prison system from the end of the eighteenth century to the end of the twentieth century. Despite the size of almost a thousand pages, the book reads like a novel. Even before Herman Franke’s untimely death in 2010 there were plans for a re-publication of the book in a hardcover. That re-edition was finally made available by Boom criminologie in 2020. In this special issue of Justitiële verkenningen, eight prison experts from science and practice reflect on the contemporary prison system from the perspective of the book. It offers tools to rise above the delusions of the day in public and scientific discussions about punishment and to relate new developments to the theoretical concepts introduced by Franke.

This special issue of Justitiële verkenningen (Judicial Explorations) discusses three developments that have driven the use of DNA to grow: technological advances in DNA data sequencing, the booming market for commercial DNA testing, and the internationalization of the collection and sharing of DNA data. More and more DNA data is being distributed without any insight into what exactly happens to this data. While strict rules apply to the management and use of DNA data by the police and judicial authorities, this is not yet the case for data from commercial DNA tests. In this episode of Justitiële verkenningen, particular attention is paid to the rise of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG). This phenomenon means that the police and the judicial authorities use data from commercial DNA databases to track down suspects. The successes achieved in this way in deadlocked murder cases, including in the United States, are also discussed. It is clear that not everyone who sends DNA material to a DTC company foresees such an application, and this use is therefore controversial. Moreover, relatives of these customers are not systematically informed and they are usually not asked for permission. This special issue aims to contribute to the public debate on the consequences and risks of the dissemination of DNA data.

In this interview the Dutch prosecutor Koos Plooij discusses with criminal lawyer Christian Flokstra on the intention of the Public Prosecution Office to adapt article 46 of the Dutch Penal Law (Sr) in such a way that the burden of proof necessary for a sentence on contract killing is lowered. Plooij argues that many suspects who were clearly up to a very serious deed, have received a relatively low punishment because it was too difficult to prove that they were preparing a contract killing – and were not simply trying to intimidate their target or for instance take this person as a hostage. For the judge it is essential to establish which crime was being prepared, since the latter are completely different crimes and the punishment is much lower compared to the punishment for murder. Flokstra replies by stressing that the limitations of the current article 46 Sr exist to assure that people are not punished for things they didn’t do or were not planning to do. He argues that the prosecution should accept that sometimes there’s just not enough proof to convince the judge that the suspect was preparing a contract killing. A sentence for arms possession or participation in a criminal organization could be an alternative in such cases. Both men agree that the current maximum punishments for these crimes are too low.