Policy coherence in the area of safety and justice – A longitudinal analysis of service delivery per euro spent in the S&J sector during the period 1980-2016

In the safety and justice policy area, there is a strong intertwining between performances of the various sectors, such as police, judiciary and prison system. The question is whether policy takes these interdependencies into account sufficiently. Are the resources used – from a broader wealth perspective – optimally allocated amongst the various safety and justice provisions? The authors answer this question on the basis of an integrated time series analysis of the productivity development of the Dutch safety and justice system in the period 1980-2016. The analysis shows that productivity of safety and justice services has hardly changed since 1980. At best, in 2016, citizens will receive as much value per euro of taxpayers’ money as in 1980, but probably slightly less. It is striking, however, that the S&J system as a whole operates more efficient than the sum of its parts (the individual sectors). There have been substantial changes in the allocation of resources over time. Obviously money from the police was transferred to the judiciary and municipalities.

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 dit artikel wordt de wettelijke regeling omtrent de bedreigde getuige nader bezien. Na een korte omschrijving van de totstandkoming en de inhoud van de wettelijke regeling (art. 226a-226f Sv), wordt uitgebreid ingegaan op verschillende vragen en knelpunten die in de praktijk naar voren komen. Achtereenvolgens worden de volgende onderwerpen besproken: de wettelijke plicht om verdachte vooraf op de vordering te horen, de bedreigde getuige in een zaak van een NN-verdachte en in zaken met meerdere verdachten, de praktische (on)uitvoerbaarheid van het waarborgen van anonimiteit en ten slotte het toetsingskader dat wordt gehanteerd bij een appel tegen een statusverlening.