In the nineteenth century in the Netherlands, tramps and beggars were sent to Veenhuizen to work there as a form of punishment and rehabilitation. To investigate the background of these banished men, the authors drew a systematic 5% sample out of 6.000 men who were banished between 1896-1901. Using information from the so-called ‘signalements’-cards that were compiled, the authors found that the Veenhuizen men were not uneducated, unskilled workers, but on the contrary, often had some kind of (semi-)skilled profession. Many did not have a permanent abode, and only a few had (ever) been married. At on average 45 years of age, the Veenhuizen convicts were old for the era they lived in. As such these men lacked and had probably at some point in their lives lost societal as well as social ties, and had gone adrift.
Recidivism was high. While the Veenhuizen measure may have been effective in delivering society from the blemishes that these men represented, but in general it didn't turn these men into fully participating citizens.

There is a natural alliance between the ambitions of prison chaplaincy and those of restorative justice in the sense that in both approaches (coping with) responsibility and guilt by offenders are important issues and mechanisms at the same time. Both share a relational concept of crime, consider the evil deed as occasion to start a dialogue to examine responsibility, stress the importance of process and bi-lateral partiality with both the victim and the offender. Coping with guilt and making it productive requires that communication with the offender reaches the deeper and more intimate levels of giving meaning to the criminal offence committed, self, others, past and future. For this communication the context should be open and fundamentally loving in a Christian sense, leading the way to a liberation from guilt once it is thoroughly known and accepted. At that point guilt can be transformed into a constructive moral impetus in human relations.

This article discusses the main features of the draft version of the new Criminal Code for the Netherlands Antilles, which was completely revised and updated in accordance with the latest case law and applicable international treaties. The draft legislation abolishes the dead penalty and minimum sentences. Also it introduces community services, a travel ban, an extension of self-defense in the direct vicinity of one's house and the obligatory review of life-long jail sentences after twenty years. Furthermore it adapts and modernizes the presently existing fines and criminal law for minors. The draft legislation is pending the recommendations of the Advice Council and will be presented to the Parliament thereafter.

In Dutch history five cases are known of animals that received the death penalty after ‘committing a crime’. Nowadays it sounds rather strange to present animals as offenders. Does that mean that no contemporary examples can be found of animals being presented as offenders? Before answering that question some outlooks on judicial and criminological ideas are presented on offending by human and other animals. Next the debate on invasive exotic species and the threats to biodiversity, health and other risks, and the discussion about the dangers regarding pit bulls is described in order to illustrate that in this day and age there still seems to be a risky anthropomorphic and anthropocentric tendency to present animals as offenders.

This article focuses on the current measure for persistent offenders (ISD-measure), by taking into account three equivalent penal sanctions that have been developed in the Netherlands from 1886 onwards. First, the penalty of a labour colony for vagrants and the like for three years at most. Second, the measure to keep the habitual offenders in additional, preventive custody for five to ten years. Finally, the measure of two-year detention for drug addicted offenders. In the article it is argued that in spite of the differences in (judicial) elaboration, all three former existing sanctions have the same legitimating fundamental principle as the ISD-measure. That is, the notion that certain offenders are a danger to society, due to their persistent criminality and nuisance causing lifestyle. The primary objective of all these penal sanctions is therefore a long term protection of society from this danger. In this sense, the ISD-measure makes clear that present state-policy is above all one of sheer deprivation of freedom.

This article discusses what is left aside in the perspective of nodal governance: namely the adaptability and dynamics of social reality itself. The challenge is to research ‘what actually happens’ without reducing it to collective structures or specific frameworks in advance. Previous to specific structures (‘teams’) and frameworks (‘meetings’, ‘contracts’) there is constant change, movement and difference. By using the work of the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) the authors research how the nodes police, insurers and loss adjusters cooperate in the fight against transport criminality and how interactions between these nodes take content and shape. Consequently, their cooperation is not interpreted as a static theme, but rather as a dynamic process that requires constant interpretation in terms of relationships, unexpected events, adaptations and coincidences. On the basis of fifteen in-depth interviews the authors show in which way a ‘new language’ with ‘new mechanisms’ originates within the cooperation. As a consequence, ‘informal contacts’, ‘goals and interests’, ‘mutual confidence’ and ‘information-exchange’, which play an important role between the nodes, are constantly re-defined.

The primary objective of the ISD Order is to reduce public nuisance caused by extremely persistent offenders. Another objective is to reduce recidivism. Recidivism can be prevented by influencing behaviour, with due regard to any personal issues involved. In this article the author looks at the arguments the judiciary uses to impose or end an ISD Order. The author notices that the judiciary views ISD Orders as a last resort: an order is given only in the absence of alternatives, and with the requirement attached that ISD subjects are to be put on a programme. The judiciary considers rehabilitation within an ISD framework to be extremely important. The orders are almost invariably imposed for two years, with no deduction of the pretrial detention period. There is reason to terminate the order if the recidivism risk has receded, but there may be other termination grounds, outside the control of the ISD subject, such as negligence on the part of a government agency.

The regulation regarding the law enforcement in the new construction of the Netherlands Antilles has to be adapted. The country of the Netherlands Antilles will be divided in three parts: two more or less autonomous countries (Curaçao and Sint Maarten) and the remaining islands (the third part) will fall directly under Dutch rule. In this article special attention is being paid to the law enforcement on the islands (and countries) Curaçao and Sint Maarten. Will it be possible (in the future) for the Dutch Minister of Justice to give guidelines or orders to the prosecution office based in Curaçao and Sint Maarten? It has been agreed that the countries of the Netherlands, Sint Maarten and Curaçao will consult regularly on prosecution policy in order to coordinate their actions. Also a new legal possibility is created for all three Ministers of Justice (including the Dutch minister) to give guidelines or orders to the prosecution, but in special cases only after approval of the Common Court of Justice.