The Netherlands Closes Prisons Because It Doesn't Have Enough Prisoners(fastcoexist.com)
fastcoexist.com
The Netherlands Closes Prisons Because It Doesn't Have Enough Prisoners
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3067771/the-netherlands-keeps-closing-prisons-because-it-doesnt-have-enough-prisoners
90 comments
> People have very little confidence that reporting a crime will lead to the criminal getting caught
I thought that way too, but it's not all bad. I was recently positively surprised when the police actually investigated a bike theft that I reported (online) and caught and prosecuted the thief! Court session is next month, I'm going and will take my daughter (who's bike it was) there to learn...
I thought that way too, but it's not all bad. I was recently positively surprised when the police actually investigated a bike theft that I reported (online) and caught and prosecuted the thief! Court session is next month, I'm going and will take my daughter (who's bike it was) there to learn...
Good, the judge will probably let you or her say something.
Don't know if its with all cases, but the sentencing is usually in the 2 weeks after the session.
Don't know if its with all cases, but the sentencing is usually in the 2 weeks after the session.
Please reply to your comment and let us know what the outcome is, if you remember too.
I'll do that.
I actually expect it to be disappointing. I have applied for damage compensation, but I would be very surprised to get anything back, to be frank. There will not be any jailtime for sure. Still, I've been surprised in this case already, so who knows.
I actually expect it to be disappointing. I have applied for damage compensation, but I would be very surprised to get anything back, to be frank. There will not be any jailtime for sure. Still, I've been surprised in this case already, so who knows.
> I'm going and will take my daughter (who's bike it was) there to learn...
Risky, as she may learn "The system doesn't care about me, and due to a small technical glitch will let a guilty person walk free"
Don't envy having to explain that one...
Risky, as she may learn "The system doesn't care about me, and due to a small technical glitch will let a guilty person walk free"
Don't envy having to explain that one...
Isn't that a pretty good lesson to learn?
just my opinion as a father of a six-year old girl: it is indeed a good lesson to learn--eventually.
Whether it's a good lesson to learn now depends (or at least it would for me) on the child's age.
Whether it's a good lesson to learn now depends (or at least it would for me) on the child's age.
Agreed. I am if anything overly pessimistic on the world.. but I don't think 6 is the right age for that lesson :)
Learn cops are your friend as a kid. It might help them someday (lost at store etc. etc). Then when they start to drive, maybe it is time for a youtube video on "no, don't consent to a search of your car even if you have nothing to hide - here is why".
Learn cops are your friend as a kid. It might help them someday (lost at store etc. etc). Then when they start to drive, maybe it is time for a youtube video on "no, don't consent to a search of your car even if you have nothing to hide - here is why".
> Our current police and justice department like to do magic with the statistics
I suspect you are doing the same: "2-3%" probably does include everything: Scratches on parked cars, lost passports or IDs that are reported stolen instead of "lost" and so on (read: all that is reported as a crime for convenience or for insurance claims).
And I fail to see the negative reasons you hint at in your opening sentence: Should people be convicted just to reach some quota or only when the case is proven? Should people go to prison for minor crimes or should they be able to keep their job by wearing a electronic bracelet and being restricted to their house and way to/from their work place?
I suspect you are doing the same: "2-3%" probably does include everything: Scratches on parked cars, lost passports or IDs that are reported stolen instead of "lost" and so on (read: all that is reported as a crime for convenience or for insurance claims).
And I fail to see the negative reasons you hint at in your opening sentence: Should people be convicted just to reach some quota or only when the case is proven? Should people go to prison for minor crimes or should they be able to keep their job by wearing a electronic bracelet and being restricted to their house and way to/from their work place?
> Many crimes are not solved. The crime solve rate is about 2-3% which means out of that small number of actual reported crimes only a marginal amounts get solved.
How is this number different from other developed nations?
> It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.
If recidivism is low, how is that possibly not a positive?
How is this number different from other developed nations?
> It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.
If recidivism is low, how is that possibly not a positive?
I'm not saying it's a positive. But the fact that criminals are not put in jail but at home is a major contributor the emptiness of our jails.
If people aren't in jail it doesn't mean there is no crime.
Many crimes are committed by other Europeans and Dutch criminals who commit crimes in Germany across the border. For instance ramming or exploding ATMs in Germany by Dutch organised crime happens a lot.
When looking at crime rates and amount of people in jail statistics per country are very unreliable and give the wrong impression when you should look at the big European picture.
If people aren't in jail it doesn't mean there is no crime.
Many crimes are committed by other Europeans and Dutch criminals who commit crimes in Germany across the border. For instance ramming or exploding ATMs in Germany by Dutch organised crime happens a lot.
When looking at crime rates and amount of people in jail statistics per country are very unreliable and give the wrong impression when you should look at the big European picture.
Completely agree. I lived in Hungary, where the crime rate is relatively low compared to the whole Europe. But you can't actually go to an open market without securing your pockets. Now I live in Scotland, which amongst the highest crime rate countries in Europe, but it feels much safer to walk through Glasgow than to walk through Budapest.
This is because every single small pickpocket is reported and usually caught. Not to mention crime definitions like "breach of peace", with cases like "shouting in public" or "pointed his finger on walker". Police would laugh on a reports about these in Hungary.
I didn't like Amsterdam (or what I have seen of it) though, same insecure feeling.
This is because every single small pickpocket is reported and usually caught. Not to mention crime definitions like "breach of peace", with cases like "shouting in public" or "pointed his finger on walker". Police would laugh on a reports about these in Hungary.
I didn't like Amsterdam (or what I have seen of it) though, same insecure feeling.
I'd be more scared to get stabbed in Glasgow than in Amsterdam though.
Hmm, while knife crime maybe more common in Glasgow than anywhere else in western europe it's still rare and mostly restricted to rough areas (i.e. not "took a wrong turn at George Square" but "went deep into a troubled neighbourhood and kept going") and even then you'd probably have to be really looking for trouble or damn unlucky
It's because it's a crime to even carry a butterknife in your backpack.
Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania have something in common when it comes to pickpocket... and overall petty theft.
Could you elaborate what the big European picture is (with stats or arguments that you do find reliable)?
As it is, I'm skeptical. I've spent about half my life living outside of 'Western Europe' and much of the other half in Holland. My experience at least fits the statistics: Holland is one of the safest places I've ever lived, and I usually lived (and spent a chunk of my leisure time) in the 'bad parts of town'.
With a few tiny exceptions, there are very few areas I can think of that I would avoid at night at all cost, for example. I'd go anywhere in Amsterdam at any time of the night, including the bad parts. And many of my female friends, who I'd say more at risk in general, would say the same.
As it is, I'm skeptical. I've spent about half my life living outside of 'Western Europe' and much of the other half in Holland. My experience at least fits the statistics: Holland is one of the safest places I've ever lived, and I usually lived (and spent a chunk of my leisure time) in the 'bad parts of town'.
With a few tiny exceptions, there are very few areas I can think of that I would avoid at night at all cost, for example. I'd go anywhere in Amsterdam at any time of the night, including the bad parts. And many of my female friends, who I'd say more at risk in general, would say the same.
> How is this number different from other developed nations?
Germany fares much better in this regard, about 56% gets solved I think.
Germany fares much better in this regard, about 56% gets solved I think.
The rates for the Netherlands and Germany appear to be calculated very differently.
The German rate ("Aufklärungsquote") (percentage of solved crimes) includes cases that, according to the police, were sufficiently looked into. They don't care whether or not a case went before a judge or not. Fun fact: The rate can even surpass 100% since its sets solved crimes and reported crimes of one period in relation. That is, crimes solved from previous periods inflate the percentage.
http://www.krimlex.de/artikel.php?BUCHSTABE=&KL_ID=23
As for the Netherlands, their rate of solved crimes in indeed quite low (< 15 % in 2002). However, they also state that in many cases they don't even try to solve a crime because of a lack of priority(?) and missing initial suspicion (2/3 of all complaints to the police!)
https://www.uni-muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl-wissen/politik... --
The German rate ("Aufklärungsquote") (percentage of solved crimes) includes cases that, according to the police, were sufficiently looked into. They don't care whether or not a case went before a judge or not. Fun fact: The rate can even surpass 100% since its sets solved crimes and reported crimes of one period in relation. That is, crimes solved from previous periods inflate the percentage.
http://www.krimlex.de/artikel.php?BUCHSTABE=&KL_ID=23
As for the Netherlands, their rate of solved crimes in indeed quite low (< 15 % in 2002). However, they also state that in many cases they don't even try to solve a crime because of a lack of priority(?) and missing initial suspicion (2/3 of all complaints to the police!)
https://www.uni-muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl-wissen/politik... --
It strikes me as highly unlikely that the 2-3% a previous poster listed for NL en 56% for DE is valid in the sense that if both statements are true, that they are comparing apples to apples.
These kind of numbers are hard to interpret anyhow; they're so dependent on methodology that I'd wager their primary purpose is to influence opinion one way or the other, alas.
These kind of numbers are hard to interpret anyhow; they're so dependent on methodology that I'd wager their primary purpose is to influence opinion one way or the other, alas.
Depends on crime type. Criminals generally get caught because they commit a lot of crime not because the cops put a lot of effort into any one crime.
Consider speeding, on any given trip doing 25 over is unlikely to get caught. If you do 25 over on every trip then you will get caught. Sure, murder is investigated but many a drive by in the US goes unsolved.
Consider speeding, on any given trip doing 25 over is unlikely to get caught. If you do 25 over on every trip then you will get caught. Sure, murder is investigated but many a drive by in the US goes unsolved.
Some positive contributing factors are:
Crime is decreasing. Violent crime is decreasing.
Electronic ankle bracelet house arrests are both a cost saving measure (~50k euro a year per person) and contribute to rehabilitation.
These rehabilitation programs in the Netherlands are top-notch, lessening the recidivism rates.
Progressive (hard) drug laws target dealers and manufacturers over (recreative) users. Hard drug addicts have (sponsored) access to rehab programs, also inside prisons.
No, or little, privatization, makes prisons focus on quality and long-term efficiency, not quantity and short-term profits.
Crime is decreasing. Violent crime is decreasing.
Electronic ankle bracelet house arrests are both a cost saving measure (~50k euro a year per person) and contribute to rehabilitation.
These rehabilitation programs in the Netherlands are top-notch, lessening the recidivism rates.
Progressive (hard) drug laws target dealers and manufacturers over (recreative) users. Hard drug addicts have (sponsored) access to rehab programs, also inside prisons.
No, or little, privatization, makes prisons focus on quality and long-term efficiency, not quantity and short-term profits.
Out of those solved crimes only a percentage reaches an actual conviction for the criminal.
Well, that's literally true anywhere. Besides, a very high conviction rate indicates an unhealthy judicial system: http://www.economist.com/node/8680941
Well, that's literally true anywhere. Besides, a very high conviction rate indicates an unhealthy judicial system: http://www.economist.com/node/8680941
98% accused of the crime in US plead guilty.
Because: sit in a cell for a year because you don't have $500 for bail... or plead guilty. New York recently took up legislation on this topic after someone spent over a year in jail because they felt innocent, and then killed them self.
That's not a good thing. It frequently comes down to...
Plead guilty to a misdemeanor and a few months behind bars.
Or, go to trial, face a felony charge, with increased risks to later life (felony = more jail-time, harder to find a job, etc).
Plead guilty to a misdemeanor and a few months behind bars.
Or, go to trial, face a felony charge, with increased risks to later life (felony = more jail-time, harder to find a job, etc).
I feel like the only way to solve this is to ensure the plea is within some margin of the actual charges.
We need many times more public defenders so people have representation actually able to spend time on the case.
Even with a competent lawyer, how many will be willing to roll the dice on a trial?
Take a fairly "common" drunk in public... should be a night in jail and fine, or similar. But, a poorly trained cop was involved, so they're now adding resisting arrest (another misdemeanor) AND assaulting a police officer (felony with mandatory minimum sentencing).
Now, instead of fighting the original misdemeanor on it's merits, you're pleading guilty to it to avoid a potentially life-ruining felony.
Take a fairly "common" drunk in public... should be a night in jail and fine, or similar. But, a poorly trained cop was involved, so they're now adding resisting arrest (another misdemeanor) AND assaulting a police officer (felony with mandatory minimum sentencing).
Now, instead of fighting the original misdemeanor on it's merits, you're pleading guilty to it to avoid a potentially life-ruining felony.
How many of those to the original crime though? I've read (this could be wrong) that plea bargaining has become endemic, which makes many of these statistics biased-to-useless.
It's so endemic that plea bargaining is a part of the official process for minor traffic violations. I used to get a lot of speeding tickets and I would always take them to court, because the solicitor would always negotiate just prior to the trail. It usually saves you some money if you do this (depends on the jurisdiction) The process was almost always for the DA or solicitor to recommend you plea guilty or no contest. If you plead guilty, you would not see the judge and you'd get a reduced sentence (typically increased fine, but no points on your license). No contest would have different rules depending on the court, but would also end up better for you in the long run most times.
The one time I please innocent (I truly felt I was), I ended up with 6 months probation, 2x the fine, and double the points on my license. In the end, the cost was well over double what I would have paid if I had just not contested and dealt with the solicitor. The judge even commented during the proceedings how taking such a simple case of speeding in front of the court wastes everyone's time and I should have been ashamed.
BTW, I was contesting the case, because there was no speed limit sign posted where I was pulled over. Evidently there had been construction completed recently which changed the number of lanes and intersections. This caused the county to reduce the speed limit, but they failed to install a new sign. The old one was removed during the construction.
That sign was never installed. It only got fixed after additional changes were made several years later.
The one time I please innocent (I truly felt I was), I ended up with 6 months probation, 2x the fine, and double the points on my license. In the end, the cost was well over double what I would have paid if I had just not contested and dealt with the solicitor. The judge even commented during the proceedings how taking such a simple case of speeding in front of the court wastes everyone's time and I should have been ashamed.
BTW, I was contesting the case, because there was no speed limit sign posted where I was pulled over. Evidently there had been construction completed recently which changed the number of lanes and intersections. This caused the county to reduce the speed limit, but they failed to install a new sign. The old one was removed during the construction.
That sign was never installed. It only got fixed after additional changes were made several years later.
Remember Aaron Swartz?
If keeping some semblance of life respect matters one would better plead guilty and be done with.
On a flip note, any source for that '98%'?
On a flip note, any source for that '98%'?
>>It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.<<
But that's a good thing unless you consider sending people to the mines and keep them locked behind bars for years a better alternative.
But that's a good thing unless you consider sending people to the mines and keep them locked behind bars for years a better alternative.
In the US at least, community service is typically only an option if:
- It's your first offense
- You more-or-less admit to the crime (not necessarily meaning you turned yourself in, but you didn't go through a trial while maintaining your innocence the whole time)
- You are clearly remorseful
- The crime is minor and non-violent
- The odds are seen as low or very low that you'd do it again
There are exceptions of course, but if you commit armed robbery, I don't think many people would feel community service is a just sentence. Nor would shoplifting if it's the 5th time you've been caught.
- It's your first offense
- You more-or-less admit to the crime (not necessarily meaning you turned yourself in, but you didn't go through a trial while maintaining your innocence the whole time)
- You are clearly remorseful
- The crime is minor and non-violent
- The odds are seen as low or very low that you'd do it again
There are exceptions of course, but if you commit armed robbery, I don't think many people would feel community service is a just sentence. Nor would shoplifting if it's the 5th time you've been caught.
Fair or not, I'm not sure how much international support you'll find for the idea of US justice system as a model to follow.
>> if you commit armed robbery...
There are significantly less guns available compared to the US, so armed robberies are likely heavily punished too.
While I don't say all sentences should be light as a feather, there are a lot of 'jails' (especially in Norway) where the inmates can go home for the evening or weekend.
There are significantly less guns available compared to the US, so armed robberies are likely heavily punished too.
While I don't say all sentences should be light as a feather, there are a lot of 'jails' (especially in Norway) where the inmates can go home for the evening or weekend.
Armed does not imply gun. It implies weapon of any sort.
I'm not even sure if just the implied threat of a weapon elevates it to armed robbery. But if you threaten somebody with a knife or club, I think you still get charged with armed robbery.
I'm not even sure if just the implied threat of a weapon elevates it to armed robbery. But if you threaten somebody with a knife or club, I think you still get charged with armed robbery.
The exact wording varies by state in the US, but in my state if you make someone think you're armed, legally speaking you are armed.
To use an apocryphal/urban legend example, if you stick a candy bar in a sweatshirt and point it at a cashier, that will receive the same punishment as if you pointed a loaded handgun at them.
To use an apocryphal/urban legend example, if you stick a candy bar in a sweatshirt and point it at a cashier, that will receive the same punishment as if you pointed a loaded handgun at them.
Forgot the obligatory:
- You are rich/famous.
- You are rich/famous.
That would depend on what they did and who they are, no? I hope nobody feels a nano-second sorry for a gang member, for example, but I would totally be willing to allow a kid who shoplifted to pay restitution and do community service/house arrest.
Because gang members never end up joining gangs because of dire economic need, nor can they be rehabilitated \s
Sure, "community service" might be a poor way to rehabilitate a long-term gang member, and some more extensive process might be needed to re-introduce them to society. But I wouldn't take it as far as saying nobody should ever feel sorry for them or that justice should seek to punish them instead of rehabilitating them. In fact, it seems to me like a tracking bracelet would be quite reasonable at some point in this process, since it would make them a liability for other gang members and thus help keep them away from that environment.
Sure, "community service" might be a poor way to rehabilitate a long-term gang member, and some more extensive process might be needed to re-introduce them to society. But I wouldn't take it as far as saying nobody should ever feel sorry for them or that justice should seek to punish them instead of rehabilitating them. In fact, it seems to me like a tracking bracelet would be quite reasonable at some point in this process, since it would make them a liability for other gang members and thus help keep them away from that environment.
I have never felt unsafe in the Netherlands, nor do I consider crime a big problem. This is a n=1 anecdote, but I am perfectly happy with the current system and would consider harsher punishments or longer prison sentences a downgrade.
Completely agree. Have an upvote!
Agree on many points, not all.
But most of all I would like to add that the Police has seen so many budget cuts and downsizing that they just don't have the people to do much.
In my city there are no patrols, there is no time to patrol. If there are then it is incidental.
In my city there are no patrols, there is no time to patrol. If there are then it is incidental.
honest questions
1. does a low crime reporting rate indicate distrust of the justice system? I can imagine that it might also indicate tight community cohesion.
2. does a low crime solve rate indicate ineffectiveness of the justice system? does this figure arise from "cold" police investigations alone, or are there other factors involved?
3. does a low conviction rate indicate a problem with legal frameworks or prosecutors? why are so many defendants acquitted?
4. does a low incarceration rate indicate a problem with sentencing guidelines? how does this correlate with recidivism?
1. does a low crime reporting rate indicate distrust of the justice system? I can imagine that it might also indicate tight community cohesion.
2. does a low crime solve rate indicate ineffectiveness of the justice system? does this figure arise from "cold" police investigations alone, or are there other factors involved?
3. does a low conviction rate indicate a problem with legal frameworks or prosecutors? why are so many defendants acquitted?
4. does a low incarceration rate indicate a problem with sentencing guidelines? how does this correlate with recidivism?
How do you call a crime solved if it doesn't result in a conviction?
Criminals often get community service as a punishment, even for relatively serious offences.
Are you saying that the crime rate isn't actually low?
For reference: in 2016, the Dutch police only investigated 157 cases out of 50,000 cases of internet fraud. So it's not like we don't have any criminals, the police just doesn't do shit about it.
Frankly, investigating internet fraud seems like a fool's errand in most cases. I wonder what's the closing rate for those that do get investigated; probably minuscule.
I found out who the scammer was, supplied the police with ALL the evidence, including the guy's address, phone number, etc. The police decided to not even investigate the case. And I'm not allowed to go to the guy's house and beat him up or threaten him, otherwise I would be the one who's in trouble.
Often they're reporting including bank account details. There is lots of simple to investigate fraud. Meaning: Dutch person using their own Dutch bank account to defraud people. That should be super simple to investigate.
On technical forums you sometimes see loads of people complaining that no action is being taken, despite pretty much giving police everything they need (all details: persons full name, bank account details, etc). It often takes place on e.g. Marktplaats (Dutch Ebay-like website).
On technical forums you sometimes see loads of people complaining that no action is being taken, despite pretty much giving police everything they need (all details: persons full name, bank account details, etc). It often takes place on e.g. Marktplaats (Dutch Ebay-like website).
I was scammed on Marktplaats a couple of years ago, along with about 20 victims who also got scammed by the same person. We gathered a lot of information about the scammer, down to all his personal information, ip addresses, email accounts, advertisement details, etc. After about 2 years we got a form in the mail if we would like to press charges and "sue" for damages. Everybody involved filled in the forms and about one year later this persons trial was canceled because of lack of evidence.
Not sure if it's truly hard to prove internet fraud, are understaffed or they just don't care enough. Anyway, seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or two for criminals. Even tho this person didn't look like a particularly intelligent individual or even a hardcore criminal, he got away with many scams and probably made quite a lot of money in a short period of time.
Not sure if it's truly hard to prove internet fraud, are understaffed or they just don't care enough. Anyway, seems like an easy way to make a quick buck or two for criminals. Even tho this person didn't look like a particularly intelligent individual or even a hardcore criminal, he got away with many scams and probably made quite a lot of money in a short period of time.
We can only know that if we have stats to compare with other similar countries.
Otherwise, 157 out of 50.000 cases of "internet fraud" might be just average.
Otherwise, 157 out of 50.000 cases of "internet fraud" might be just average.
[deleted]
Misleading article. I'm from the netherlands and a lot of police interviews report lack off financial support and manpower.
Only criminals that get caught end up in jail.. Criminals who do not get caught are criminals nevertheless.. And they stil do criminal things.
Correlation =/= Causation.
Only criminals that get caught end up in jail.. Criminals who do not get caught are criminals nevertheless.. And they stil do criminal things.
Correlation =/= Causation.
A found a reference for this:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/01/a-low-crime-ra...
"A confidential report by the police and public prosecution office states that official figures do not reflect the real volume of crime in the Netherlands,"
A more extensive Dutch article (referenced in above): http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/39681/nbsp/article/detail/4447567/...
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/01/a-low-crime-ra...
"A confidential report by the police and public prosecution office states that official figures do not reflect the real volume of crime in the Netherlands,"
A more extensive Dutch article (referenced in above): http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/39681/nbsp/article/detail/4447567/...
That's true everywhere. Nowhere solves 100% of its criminal cases. You must watch too many police procedural TV shows if you think the cops just march out of the office and catch the bad guy by the end of every episode. Lots of times victims don't cooperate with police, it's unclear what really happened, police can't find the perpetrator, the prosecutor decides there isn't enough evidence to pursue a trial, there's corruption involved, the perpetrator has significant financial resources to fight the case, or ultimately the judge or jury thinks the evidence is insufficient. Or most tragically, someone does get convicted and it's the wrong person! The perpetrator is still out there and an innocent person is unjustly punished.
>Only criminals that get caught end up in jail..
That's the same in every country.
The only interesting question is whether the netherlands have any higher crime rate, which I don't think is the case (compare to e.g. Britain).
If they don't arrest some guys doing some petty small stuff, it's no big deal.
That's the same in every country.
The only interesting question is whether the netherlands have any higher crime rate, which I don't think is the case (compare to e.g. Britain).
If they don't arrest some guys doing some petty small stuff, it's no big deal.
I have no idea what the the truth is, but it seems that members of most groups will anecdotally tell you they need more resources or support.
OTOH, the murder rate in 2015 was also the lowest in 20 years: http://nltimes.nl/2016/07/29/netherlands-murder-rate-20-year...
In loads of cases questionable deaths haven't been investigated on how they died. Meaning: lots of murders aren't being reported/seen as murder. Unfortunately do not have an article/reference for this, despite trying to find it.
What makes you think the percentage of questionable deaths has changed? If it hasn't, an all time low murder rate still stands.
Murder isn't the same as questionable deaths?!? I don't think that has changed. I said that in not enough cases they're checking if someone has been murdered or not. As such, you cannot trust that murder has gone down. This has been reported by Dutch news within the last 12 months I already mentioned I couldn't find that report via Google.
This is exactly the same as the crime rate. Less reported figures doesn't mean crime rate has gone down. For that one I gave elsewhere their own investigation which shows that crime rate went up.
This is exactly the same as the crime rate. Less reported figures doesn't mean crime rate has gone down. For that one I gave elsewhere their own investigation which shows that crime rate went up.
Murder is usually the one crime stat that can't be fudged - the saying in public policy circles is "you can't hide a body". You can downgrade an assault to a public order disturbance, you can just fail to log thefts, but when someone dies it gets into too many databases to remove from the stats.
Most murders are not of the sort where it's unclear if it was murder at all. Someone's stabbed, beaten, shot, etc.
Most murders are not of the sort where it's unclear if it was murder at all. Someone's stabbed, beaten, shot, etc.
> Murder is usually the one crime stat that can't be fudged
Homicides generally, maybe, are harder to fudge (especially homicides + suicides as a single group) but breaking down into specific crimes (and non-crimes; not all homicide is criminal) certainly can be fudged.
Homicides generally, maybe, are harder to fudge (especially homicides + suicides as a single group) but breaking down into specific crimes (and non-crimes; not all homicide is criminal) certainly can be fudged.
Internal report of Dutch police / justice : there is probably 5 times more criminality as in the statistics.
I have read here, sometime, from someone, crime statistics are based on a survey in the UK ( instead of relying on the police ).
I have read here, sometime, from someone, crime statistics are based on a survey in the UK ( instead of relying on the police ).
> I have read here, sometime, from someone, crime statistics are based on a survey in the UK ( instead of relying on the police ).
Both. There are official statistics from the police and Crown Prosecution Service about number of cases reported, investigated, charged and outcomes, but there is separately a survey, which gives important additional information about whether or not people feel it worth reporting crime.
Both. There are official statistics from the police and Crown Prosecution Service about number of cases reported, investigated, charged and outcomes, but there is separately a survey, which gives important additional information about whether or not people feel it worth reporting crime.
Yes, apparently, 'victimization surveys' are actually a more accurate way of measuring crime than using the stats released by the state.
i.e. 'have you been robbed in the last month or last year' etc.
i.e. 'have you been robbed in the last month or last year' etc.
12000 convicted criminals at large, about 3000 for sentences > 120 days. Source, dutch: http://justitie.eenvandaag.nl/tv-items/69099/meer_zware_crim...
The system here is a bit weird. We pay large sums of money to the dutch equivalent of Al Capone then wonder why there are problems with organized crime in Amsterdam.
I'm just curious, who is Al Capone in your example?
Cees H, he's a (former?) drug lord. Guy had like $700m of his illicit profits in cash. Which is a lot in Holland. For some reason the state paid him ~$2m in compensation after he was released from jail. For being caught?
A minister recently resigned because they lied about it:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/27/dutch-minister-resigns-ov...
A minister recently resigned because they lied about it:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/27/dutch-minister-resigns-ov...
interesting thanks for the reply I'm gonna read more about this
They need a good old war on drugs; pair that with privatization and they can rake in the money.
Maybe they should rent them out to the UK, we've got loads of spare prisoners.
Belgium already sends prisoners to the netherlands ( the project is over now though)
Norwegian prisoners in The Netherlands already.
[deleted]
If they're renting them, I think Romania has a higher need at the moment :)
This sounds like a great thing to me. Is the sentiment expressed in the article by MP Nine Kooiman that empty cells means more people should be arrested a common one in The Netherlands?
penultimate paragraph:
> Closing prisons is good news in many ways. It means less money wasted, and signals that there is less crime. It also leaves empty facilities that can be repurposed, like an old jail in Colorado which was turned into a transitional housing facility for the homeless, with a focus on homeless veterans.
> Closing prisons is good news in many ways. It means less money wasted, and signals that there is less crime. It also leaves empty facilities that can be repurposed, like an old jail in Colorado which was turned into a transitional housing facility for the homeless, with a focus on homeless veterans.
Not really, no. Crime rates have been steadily declining for years. The SP is a minority party which never had a seat in government (even though they were founded in the 70's). They are mostly worried about the job losses this would cause.
They could always dedicate themselves to committing more crime.
Unthinkable here in the USA. When prisons start emptying, just increase sentence lengths to keep those beds full and corporate prison profits up. EDIT: Also effective: simply increase enforcement. Since so many things are illegal, police just need to fish more if they want to catch more.
Corporate prisons are a (small) minority; the strongest lobby in favor of increased incarceration is from the prison guards' unions (which often supply a majority of a state's prison staff).
Many crimes are not solved. The crime solve rate is about 2-3% which means out of that small number of actual reported crimes only a marginal amounts get solved.
Out of those solved crimes only a percentage reaches an actual conviction for the criminal.
It's very common for judges to pass a community services punishment or an electronic ankle bracelet house arrest.
Lastly. Our current police and justice department like to do magic with the statistics to make everything seem like a colourful rainbow world where no crime happens at all.