The probation in the Netherlands works more victim conscious since last year. Victim conscious working in probation is defined as: involving the perspective and interests of the victim when working with offenders. This broadly and to the extent it is justifiable from the primary task of the probation to reduce recidivism and promote the re-integration of probation clients/offenders. With this justification is both the moral level (right action) as being involved professional standards (effective action).
The article describes, among other, a study on how the victim consciously work has been implemented within the Salvation Army Probation Service in the Netherlands.

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.

This study aims to examine the practice of the decision making on conduct certificate requests of juvenile ex-offenders, as there has not been done any empirical research on this topic so far. 57 cases are studied in order to answer the question whether the decision making meets the legal and penological justifications for collateral sentencing. Conclusion is the decisions are not proportional as to the seriousness of the risks which are aimed to be prevented and the relation between the past convictions and the desired job. Moreover, the requests are being individually assessed, yet more weight should be attached to the age, interests and positive developments of juvenile ex-offenders. Only then, the decisions can be regarded legitimate and proportional and do hinder juvenile ex-offenders’ successful reintegration into society.

In this article, Roy Wildemors explains how the Central Organisation for Certificates of Good Conduct decides on an application for a certificate of good conduct (CGC). First, it is determined whether the applicant has a criminal record that is relevant to the purpose for which the CGC has been applied for. If he does not have one, the CGC will be granted. If he has, specific personal circumstances will be taken into account, e.g. the number of antecedents, his age and the time that has passed since his last antecedent. Finally, his interests will be balanced against those of society.

As a result of the workshop ‘Decision making VOG’, this article provides an overview of the relevant case-law regarding the issuing of a certificate of good conduct. This article especially focuses on the way an application of a certificate is being judged by the authorities (the COVOG) and later on the judge(s) using the objective and subjective criteria summed up in the ‘policy guideline VOG’. If possible, the article provides tips and tricks for applicants (and lawyers) regarding the application of a certificate of good conduct and the judicial procedure after the issuance is refused.

Juvenile offenders are confronted with criminal records. When they want to start education, work or an internship after detention, they often need a certificate of good conduct. In the Netherlands in recent years it has become more difficult for youth offenders to receive this certificate; criminal records have a detrimental impact, in particular for sex offenders. International juvenile justice standards stress the importance of the right of youngsters to social reintegration and protection of the right to privacy and should lead to an adjustment of this policy of repression.

In this contribution the question is addressed how measures that aim to hold ex-convicts from occupying certain jobs and positions can be justified and what their limitations are. In the literature on collateral sentencing in particular four conditions are stressed. First, the vulnerable character of the occupation or activity involved. Second, there should be a strong relation between the conviction and the risk that has to be avoided. Third, collateral consequences should be individualized and only be imposed against those posing specific and demonstrable risks. Finally, a broad proportionality test should be applied on them, harsh civil disqualification should not be applied for relatively minor offences and burdensome restrictions may not be imposed in order to prevent relatively trivial risks. This theoretical model is applied on the regulation and practice of the Dutch conduct certificate.

In dit artikel wordt in vogelvlucht de totstandkoming en de theorie van het justitieel casusoverleg (JCO) geschetst. Het JCO is een overleg waarbij verschillende ‘ketenpartners’ per jeugdige overleggen over de beste aanpak ten aanzien van vervolging, afdoening en hulpverlening. De Rotterdamse praktijk van het JCO komt ook aan bod. Er wordt met name ingegaan op de effectiviteit van het Rotterdamse JCO. Hoewel het Rotterdamse JCO effectief is, kan de objectieve meerwaarde nog verder worden verbeterd. Ontwikkelingen zoals de komst van het Rotterdamse Veiligheidshuis bieden kansen om het JCO nog beter te laten functioneren.