‘People with a migration background experience a disadvantage of almost every step in the criminal justice chain’

While people with a migration background in the police figures about arrests form a minority, they turn out to be distributed in prison sentences in the majority. How is that possible? That question arose when Minister Ferd Grapperhaus (Justice and Security, CDA) sent a newsworthy scientific insight to the House of Representatives in 2021: there are relatively more people with a migration background in prison than on the basis of police figures. Grapperhaus replied to a motion by SGP Member of the Member of Kees van der Staaij, who asked attention to the “worrying over-representation” of people with a migration background in the crime statistics.

The Minister’s answers were reassuring in the first instance. Under all ‘origin groups’, crime in the fifteen years before was ‘fallen strongly’. People with a migration background were indeed over -represented, but for most groups that could be explained from factors such as an average younger age where more crime takes place and an average lower education and income.

The case law is based on the principle of equal treatment and equal outcomes in equal cases. Based on these findings, there are any comments about this

Especially in people with an Antillean, Aruban, or a Moroccan background, “a certain degree of over -representation” remained visible even after correction for these factors. The scientific debate about the question of why is still in full swing.

Only why does every new step in the criminal justice chain – from arrest to impose a prison sentence – increase the proportion of people with a migration background? Grapperhaus called in the scientific research and data center (WODC) and researchers Petra de Jong and Arjen Leerkes sought it out. They will announce the first results this Thursday.

How exactly do you see the over -representation of people with a migration background increasing per step in the criminal justice chain?

De Jong: “In minors you see that 46 percent of the suspects registering the police has a migration background. For the minors who then registered for prosecution at the OM, this is increasing to 49 percent. For the cases that are subsequently brought to court, 56 percent. When the detention is imposed, the share of a migration background has risen to a migration background.

In adults, the share of people with a migration background increases from 45 percent of the suspects to 55 percent in those who are imposed detention. ”

How is that?

De Jong: “A part of the difference can be explained from the type of offense that is registered. On average, people with a migration background are more often involved in offenses where the chance of prosecution and conviction to detention is greater. We can also declare part of the rising share of people with a migration background in the criminal law chain, which are more likely to be a little more suspicion. imposing detention. ”

Leerkes: “Group differences in background characteristics also play a role, for example the level of education. Why that is, we cannot test in this study. Possibly the risk of recidivism for higher -educated people is estimated to be lower, which means that they are less likely to end up in court and are less often imposed.

Even if we correct for all these factors, there will remain in the step where the Public Prosecution Service delivers a suspect to court and the step where the judge imposes detention, a substantial part of the difference to migration background unexplained. “

De Jong: “We see this as an indication of direct ethnic selectivity. By this we mean selectivity that is more closely related to the ethnic origin of the suspect. Direct ethnic selectivity can indicate negative sentiment towards groups with a migration background among judges, officers and other professionals in the criminal justice of certain ETNIFTS of a figures of one. Figures of a figures of one. Figures of a figures of a figures of a figures of a figures of a figures of a figures of a figures or figures. The judgment of employees in the criminal justice may also be used to explain the results in the criminal skills or the lack of a permanent residence instead of a community service.

Zoom in

Where do you see the greatest degree of ethnic selectivity in the criminal justice chain?

Leerkes: “After checking for the nature of the crimes, young people with at least one migrant parent have a 28 percent higher chance of detention than young people without a migration background. In the entire model, where we also check for background characteristics and the number of antecedents, that is a 22 percent higher chance.”

What is the most important outcome of this research?

Leerkes: “The fact that groups with a migration background experience disadvantages in almost all steps in the criminal justice chain. We see that the differences according to migration background in the first step of settlement – the chance of registration at the OM – can be explained by differences in the crime type. So this does not seem directly to disadvantage. Furthermore, we see the outcomes of the comparable verdenkingen. Subspricial position among suspects with a migration background.

Young people born in the Netherlands with at least one migrant parent have a 28 percent higher chance than young people without a migration background to get a custodial sentence

To what extent is our system discriminatory with this?

Leerkes: “I would not say that we have a discriminatory system. We see social inequalities arising and being enlarged in the criminal justice chain and various forms of discrimination will partly be responsible for this. But how big that part is difficult to determine and it is also difficult to determine objectively how strong the degree of discrimination should be a system as such as a discriminato. The system but that does not make the system discriminatory yet. “

De Jong: “The case law is based on the principle of equal treatment and equal outcomes in the same cases. Based on these findings, there can be comments on this. In individual cases, the judge will probably make good intentions a trade -off of the consequences of a punishment, for example having work, home and again as mitigating circumstances can be led to the rather challenge of Dutch and the poor control of the Kaneting in the Kaneting and the Prayer of the Kanetation. A greater chance of detention from our research.

What can you do about this?

Leerkes: “In any case, more than just the well-known ‘bias training’ to combat unconscious prejudices. For example, certain settlement rules must also be taken. That you have to confess a crime to have less chance of detention. We are now doing follow-up research into what else can be improved.”

To share





Mail the editors