Prisoners often encounter multiple barriers when returning to society, resulting in higher risks of recidivism. To overcome these barriers, prison-based and community-based professionals assist with preparation for release. Prison-based professionals, such as the case manager and mentor, screen and monitor the problems regarding work and income, housing, healthcare, financial debts and valid identification. Community-based professionals, such as municipal officials, parole officers, healthcare professionals and volunteers, can provide additional and specialized help. First, this research discusses the current policy of the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and the role of different types of professionals. Second, it presents a nationwide picture of the extent to which prisoners report contact with prison-based and community-based professionals, and to what degree prisoners appreciate this contact. The results are specified for various types of regimes and time served and are based on 4308 prisoner surveys of the Dutch Prison Visitation Study (DPVS), part of the Life in Custody Study (LIC-study). It turns out that most prisoners seem to be in close contact with prison-based professionals and that prisoners positively value this contact. However, contact with community-based professionals is limited and prisoners are somewhat dissatisfied about their contact with parole officers and municipal officials. Furthermore, the amount of contact differs across various types of regimes and time served. In particular, individuals who recently entered prison report less contact. To conclude, policy implications will be discussed.

This article deals with recent developments in legislation and court rulings concerning churches. These developments are divergent in terms of the issues they concern and the outcome they show. The article sketches the background of each of these developments and analyses and explains them in the perspective of the principle of church autonomy. It concludes with recommendations to the legislature and the courts as well as churches themselves.

In 1922 Honing gave a speech for the Society for the Moral Improvement of Prisoners, in which he advocated renewal in the prison system: for the sake of rehabilitation the system of solitary confinement should be replaced by a prison system in which prisoners actually share facilities and live together. His proposal for reform is theory driven and accompanied by a plan to experiment with the joint confinement before implementing it. This is in sharp contrast with contemporary prison reforms, which impair the possibilities for rehabilitation of prisoners.

In 1985 the Second International Congress on (Prison) Abolitionism took place. The organizers wanted to denounce the formalistic-legal approach to crime and revise the criminal pretensions. The aim was to develop a non-repressive process of conflict regulation. This contribution addresses the question of whether or to what extent the development of restorative justice in recent decades is an extension of the abolitionist perspective. Among other things, the developments in punishment and restorative detention and restorative justice in The Netherlands are discussed. It is concluded that restorative justice in a broad sense- and the introduction of small-scale, tailor-made detention are a realistic, at this time appropriate continuation of the efforts to find solutions for resolving conflicts outside criminal law.

In the Netherlands, immigration detention is classified under administrative law. More precisely: it is a form of administrative coercion. But immigration detention is also deprivation of liberty, or a habeas corpus measure. This makes it the most far-reaching form of administrative coercion you can think of. The regime and house rules of immigration detention differ just a little from those of criminal deprivation of liberty. The draft bill on the Return and Detention Act provides some improvements. For asylum seekers that cause nuisance, there is the Enforcement and Supervision Location, where the foreign national is given an area restriction and must remain within the municipal boundaries. Due to the liberty restrictions, immigration detention should always be the last resort.

Qualitative research in an immigration detention center in the Netherlands shows that detained unauthorized migrants consider the entry procedure in Immigration Centre Rotterdam procedurally just. These migrants are generally positive on the fairness of the entry procedure as their safety and welfare are guaranteed and existing procedural justice criteria are respected. However, they believe that immigration detention in itself is illegitimate and that they do not deserve to be detained. This shows that the focus on procedures and interactions is insufficient to understand the perceived legitimacy of immigration detention if shared values and consent with the legal basis of immigration detention are lacking.

Worldwide, at least 1,900 Dutch prisoners are housed in foreign detention every year. Although previous research describes this group of prisoners and the conditions of their detention, it is unknown to what extent they reoffend after returning to the Netherlands. A unique dataset with data of 690 Dutch people has been used. They are supervised during their foreign detention by the International Office, part of the Dutch Probation Service. The results show that 23% of this group reoffended within two years. Furthermore, the probability of reoffending differs for the country of detention, age, way of return and prior incarcerations.

The contribution of sport to reintegrating offenders receives limited attention, both in science and in the practice of probation and the prison system. From the perspective of desistance, this literature study concluded that sport can contribute to the development of individual capital, social capital and an alternative identity. However, the effect of sport is not necessarily positive. There are risks of negative influence or the reinforcement of problem behaviour. In counselling offenders, sport should be combined with other interventions to reduce recidivism. A personalized approach is required, based on the risk-need-responsivity model.

In toenemende mate wordt in het penitentiair beleid niet alleen de doelmatigheid, maar ook de eigen verantwoordelijkheid van de gedetineerde vooropgesteld. Dit laatste geschiedt dan vanuit de neoliberale responsabiliseringsgedachte dat het gevangeniswezen zich nog slechts hoeft in te spannen om de gedetineerde zelf in staat te stellen zich op zijn terugkeer in de samenleving voor te bereiden, mits en zolang hij dat zelf tenminste wil, zich daarvoor inzet en daar ook zijn verantwoordelijkheid voor neemt. Deze bijdrage bespreekt enkele voorbeelden van de doorgevoerde en aangekondigde veranderingen in het penitentiair recht en betoogt dat deze wijzigingen al met al een forse achteruitgang van de rechtspositie van en rechtszekerheid voor gedetineerden met zich brengen.

Deze bijdrage staat stil bij een aantal kwesties die het succes van de TBS-maatregel (kunnen) ondermijnen. Voor een deel gaat het daarbij om praktische problemen die met enige goede wil zouden kunnen worden weggenomen, en voor een ander deel gaat het om een imagoprobleem waarvoor – naast goede informatieverstrekking aan verdachten, terbeschikkinggestelden en aan de samenleving – wellicht een meer structurele ingreep noodzakelijk is. Bij de bespreking van de verschillende thema’s wordt het perspectief van de terbeschikkinggestelde als uitgangspunt genomen.

Prison visitation is important for protecting against social isolation during imprisonment. It is also essential for maintaining contacts that are important for life in prison and after release. It is therefore not surprising that both nationally and internationally important policy measures and scientific research have been undertaken on the topic. Nationally, however, limited scientific research is available regarding how many, how often and from whom prisoners receive visits, how visits are experienced and the possible effects of visitation, thus leaving many questions unanswered. Meanwhile, in the past ten years great changes have been made to visitation in Dutch prison policy and practice. Given these recent developments, both scientists and practitioners could benefit from an overview of the current state of affairs of visitation. This article aims to bridge the gap between research, policy and practice by summarizing findings from the Life in Custody study. This study includes a description of how visitation is organized legally, at the policy level and in practice, a thorough review of prior research on visitation and an analysis of the most recent national data on the prevalence and frequency of visitation, while considering important differences between prisoners and prisons.

An exceptionally high prevalence of financial debt problems can be found among prisoners, but criminological knowledge on the link between debts and crime is limited. Previous studies are hindered by a lack of information on types of debts, informal debts and background characteristics. This article provides first and detailed insights in the types and amount of debts during and after prison in the Netherlands. Based on data from the Prison Project we show that the majority of prisoners report having debts during prison, show how different types of debts are related and how these debts change six months after release.