Suppose you hit someone or say that you are going to set fire to someone's house. You could be sentenced to up to six years in prison for assault or threatening behaviour. In February this year, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) announced a new guideline to deal with such cases as much as possible itself through a penalty order in the form of a fine or community service. This will reduce the number of cases coming before the courts and alleviate the capacity problem in prisons.
‘The Netherlands is a champion in imposing short prison sentences,’ says Sonja Meijer, professor of Penitentiary Law at Radboud University. ‘Eighty percent of prison sentences are shorter than six months. And a quarter of the sentences are shorter than two weeks.’
Fines or community service are also drastic
Meijer points to the main objectives of punishment: retribution, prevention and rehabilitation. ‘A large fine or a long community service order can be just as drastic as a short prison sentence and ensure that the offender does not reoffend,’ explains Meijer. Conversely, a short prison sentence can hinder rehabilitation. ‘It prevents someone from working and even puts them at risk of being fired.’
Meijer compares the new approach to Germany, where the law states that judges may not impose prison sentences of less than six months unless this helps the convicted person's rehabilitation. ‘Unlike neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and England, Germany does not have a shortage of prison places, although you cannot simply say that this is solely due to this law.’
Right to speak helps healing
Although Meijer is not opposed to the directive, she does recognise some validity in the criticism that a fine or community service does not give victims and police officers the same satisfaction as a prison sentence. ‘This is especially true in cases where a heavier prison sentence would be imposed. That is what the discussion should be about.’ She emphasises that the Public Prosecution Service does not handle every case itself and that a case will still go to court if a suspect does not agree with the sentence imposed by the Public Prosecution Service.
Meijer also sees a few other risks. ‘Take the right of victims to speak in court, for example. Because a case does not come before the court, victims have no opportunity to express their views on, for example, the consequences the offence has had for them. This right to speak can play an important role in the healing process.’
Furthermore, public prosecutors are currently unable to impose as many conditions on a sentence as a judge. ‘Think of a suspended sentence or a restraining order.” Meijer expects the new guideline to have an effect in the short term. “You will notice it quickly in prisons.’
It is difficult to say whether the new approach will be successful, but if Meijer can offer one piece of advice, it is this: ‘Efficient case handling is a bonus, but ultimately we must seek the most meaningful form of punishment for victims, perpetrators and society as a whole.’