The ruling party will explain the plan in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. According to D66 MP Joost Sneller, the citizens’ forum, which is held at national level once was used earlier, it appears that what, according to residents of the Netherlands, is paramount in the choice of sentence. The intention is that one hundred to one hundred and fifty randomly selected citizens will study this and formulate answers together.
Participants should receive information from experts to determine their position. ‘You could explain to them what punishment means in practice for convicts,’ says Sneller. ‘For example, have them look at cases and ask what the best solution is for each case. Weigh the costs: imprisonment costs average 307 euros per day! Alternatives are cheaper and, according to many experts, more effective.’
The proposal is a response to the plea of an independent advisory body of the Ministry of Justice and Security: reduce the number of short prison sentences, because they have little effect. This advice, of the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ), is on the agenda in the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon. The RSJ report states that three quarters of Dutch detainees have been detained for less than three months. According to the council, a few weeks or months of detention is too short to bring about a change in behavior or to deter criminals. Partly because many detainees lose their job and/or home, there is a good chance that they will commit crimes again. Community service or an electronic ankle bracelet would often be more effective.
Settle an account
Despite that advice, the then outgoing minister Sander Dekker (Legal Protection) called short prison sentences important, during a debate in Dec. “The main purpose of a punishment is retribution and reparation to victims and society,” the minister said. He called this ‘settle a score’.
Dekker’s words fit into a long VVD tradition, which has contributed to stricter punishment than in the past. ‘Implicitly, politicians like him say: this is what society wants,’ says Sneller. “But that’s an assumption, an idea-fixe. We would like to let people have their say on this.’
In the new cabinet, D66 provides the Minister for Legal Protection with Franc Weerwind. If you look at the distribution of parliamentary seats, you could say that there is a majority in favor of strict punishment, Sneller acknowledges. ‘If it turns out that this is the conclusion of the citizens’ forum, I will of course take that outcome very seriously. But I am hopeful that the verdict will be more nuanced.’
He points to research by emeritus professor Willem Albert Wagenaar in 2008. This showed that citizens who delve into a criminal case, read the file and discuss their decision, impose approximately the same punishment as judges. This is striking: if people only know a case from the media, they often think that judges judge too mildly.
Citizens’ forum about electoral system
Citizens’ forums have previously been set up in, among others, the Frisian Workum and Amsterdam. The only national citizens’ forum was organized by the Balkenende II cabinet (with D66) and dealt with the electoral system. This resulted in a recommendation that Balkenende IV ignored in 2008.
Sneller: ‘In order to prevent something like this from happening again, I want the government to promise to come up with a serious response and for the House to promise to debate the recommendations in advance. If citizens make time for it, that’s the least you can do.’
Similar citizens’ initiatives have more weight in France. In 2019, President Emmanuel Macron organized a ‘Citizens’ Convention for the Climate’: 150 citizens were selected after drawing lots, who were reimbursed for travel costs, childcare and meals, among other things. More than half of the 149 measures recommended by this forum have now been implemented. Sneller: ‘How you organize it practically is up to the cabinet. But this is an internationally proven method.’