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 Despite harsh criticism from within the legal complex, the bill has not been withdrawn, instead its scope has been broadened.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.