Recent sociological research and socio-political debates about socioeconomic inequality and social divisions urge legal scholars, criminologists, policy makers and practitioners to have a renewed discussion about the role of socioeconomic status of suspects and offenders in judicial decisions. If social divisions in Dutch society are deepening, we need to look anew at the possibility that injustices of the social structure affect legal rights and decisions about prosecution, sentencing and probation. This article intends to offer various starting points for debate and research.

Both the Court of Justice and the regional Court of The Hague ruled the retention of telecommunications data directive and the Dutch Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens in violation of the right to respect for privacy. The police and the Dutch Prosecutors Office have attempted to clarify the importance of the retention for criminal investigation. However, without an efficiency and effectiveness assessment of the method to request and analyse telecommunication data, it is not possible to substantiate the significance of data retention. To ‘save’ the retention of telecommunication data in its current form, but also to assess the importance of the existing and new investigative methods, a thorough analysis is necessary.

Honour, violence and masculinity are closely linked in traditional criminology, and are combined with an ethnic profile of the offender. This article discusses the conclusion of these assumptions as ethnocentric, but also as a simplification of the gendered idea of honour. Beliefs about honour, which are reduced to the male gender, and understood as conductive to crime, disregard insights regarding violent females, and awareness about the significance of honour in marginalized groups. Furthermore, this contribution discusses the supplementary value of a critical gender perspective, for discussion in criminology about honour and crime.

When a person commits a severe crime in the Netherlands, for which he cannot be (fully) held responsible because of a mental disorder, a judge may impose a hospital order in a secured psychiatric institution. To make this possible, behavioural experts have to assess whether the suspect suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the crime. However, during this assessment a suspect has the right to remain silent. Since recent years the number of non-cooperating suspects is increasing. To solve this problem, the Secretary of State of Security and Justice has submitted a legislative proposal, which makes it possible to force health professionals to submit past medical records of the suspect to the behavioural experts for their assessment without his consent. This breaches the professional law of confidentiality. Following case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this can only be justified, if it complies with the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity and necessity. The legislative proposal does not comply with these principles, as alternatives are available. These are: improvement of the forensic psychiatric care, reduction of the duration of the treatment and extension of the behavioral research period.

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is deeply rooted in the Chinese culture. Although thousands of animal and plant species are used for medicines legally, some medications contain more sinister elements; illegal animal or plant ingredients of protected species. What is the origin of this demand for rare species as medicine, who are involved in the trade and why is law enforcement complicated? This article will show that the illicit trade in TCM is a form of crime that transcends the borders of China and manifests itself in Western Europe. Various aspects of the trade are highlighted, including criminalization of the use of endangered species, western anthropocentrism and the cultural use of medicine, to understand this relatively invisible crime.

The aim of the current study is to provide insight in the support for victim rights among Dutch citizens. Although it is generally assumed that the Dutch public supports these rights, empirical research into this topic appears to be scarce. The opinion with regard to four victim rights was established in two ways. Firstly, respondents were asked about their attitudes and, secondly, about their willingness to pay extra taxes for those rights. Respondents’ attitudes concerning the victim rights in this study appear to be positive; their willingness to pay, however, is low. Findings indicate the importance of combining conventional attitude questions with alternative methods (such as questions about willingness to pay) when studying public preferences and opinions.

According to article 512 of the Dutch Criminal Procedure Code judges can be removed from a case due to facts or circumstances that (might) damage their impartiality. By analyzing how this procedure of challenge is used in practice, this research shows that it could and should be organised in a different way. Both with regards to the applicants, the challenged actors and the assessors of the procedure there are gaps and points of improvement in the current Dutch legislation. Suggestions for revision are gained from a comparative investigation of the challenge procedure in the Belgian criminal law system.

Early this year, a bill was introduced proposing mandatory minimum sentences in the Netherlands. Despite harsh criticism from within the legal complex, the bill has not been withdrawn, instead its scope has been broadened. This article states that the reasons given for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences have no empirical foundation and that the objectives of the bill will not be reached: mandatory minimum sentences will not contribute to the prevention of crime. The reason for the introduction of the bill is nothing less than a textbook example of penal populism.

Almost ten years after the catastrophic attacks in New York and Washington, Dutch counterterrorism legislation has been evaluated. Since (the drafting of) this body of legislation has been highly criticized over the past years, there was a great need for a thorough and objective evaluation, covering the questions that were risen over years concerning the legitimacy, necessity and effectiveness of the counterterrorism legislation. This article aims to show that the political nature of counterterrorism seems to impede on such an evaluation by systematically discussing the flaws and weaknesses of the evaluative study carried out by the Ministry of Security and Justice.

Recently, the punishment order by the prosecutor (article 257a Code of Criminal Procedure) and the leave to appeal system (article 410a Code of Criminal Procedure) have been adopted in Dutch criminal procedural law. Both legal measures have major consequences for the way in which minor criminal offences are dealt with. Viewing both these efficiency-promoting measures from their mutual interconnection, the question rises whether, in the settlement of these minor offences, a full process that actually does justice to all interests involved, may still be spoken of. It is suggested in this contribution that this question requires a more subtanstial revision and reassessment of the enforcement system with regards to minor offences, whereby decriminalisation may also play a pertinent role.

Labeling van jongeren in het jeugdstrafrecht kan leiden tot stigmatisering. Stigmatisering van jongeren moet voor zover mogelijk worden voorkomen, ook in het jeugdstrafrecht. Verschillende recente ontwikkelingen in het jeugdstrafrecht, zoals de toenemende neiging om jongeren met probleemgedrag te registreren in databases en om naar aanleiding van dit gedrag in casusoverleggen met deelnemers afkomstig uit jeugdstrafrecht en (jeugd)zorg in brede zin gegevens uit te wisselen, leiden mogelijk tot meer stigmatisering van de jeugdige (verdachte). De ontwikkelingen die wij in deze bijdrage beschrijven zijn registratiesystemen, met name ProKid en JCO Support, justitiële documentatie en Halt-afdoeningen, casusoverleggen in de Veiligheidshuizen en groepsgerichte aanpakken. Deze probleemgebieden tasten de privacy van de minderjarige (verdachte) aan en leiden in mindere of meerdere mate tot stigmatisering. Wij zullen voor elke ontwikkeling bespreken in hoeverre sprake is van (te veel) stigmatisering en zo ja of en hoe dit zo veel mogelijk kan worden beperkt.

Met de inwerkingtreding van de Wet op de identificatieplicht is een beeld geschept dat eenieder, vanaf de leeftijd van 14 jaar, zomaar op straat of in de publieke ruimten door de politie naar zijn identiteit kan worden gevraagd. De bevoegdheid van de politie om over te gaan tot het vorderen van inzage in identiteitsgegevens ligt echter iets genuanceerder. De politie is immers gebonden aan haar bevoegdheden en dient te handelen binnen de politietaak van artikel 2 Politiewet 1993. Zo is het te pas en te onpas vorderen van inzage in identiteitsgegevens niet toegestaan en dient een aantal waarborgen in acht te worden genomen. Doet de politie dat niet, en treedt zij buiten de aan haar toegekende bevoegdheden, dan is er sprake van onrechtmatig politieoptreden.