Reflecting over the sentencing today I realized what the three premises are of criminal justice: prevention, retribution and rehabilitation. In the Netherlands the first two have pretty much disappeared from the scene and the focus has been entirely on rehabilitation. I remember when I studied law that the criminal law faculty at my university was dominated by the so called “abolitionists”. The word says it all: their theory on criminal justice evolved around the idea that the criminal justice system as we know it should be abolished and be replaced with something that would focus entirely on rehabilitation, preferably a process that would involve both the defendant and the victim. It is unfortunate that in many cases that enter the courts these days the victim is no longer around to assist in the rehabilitation process. The abolitionist ideas have had a big impact on justice in The Netherlands although I believe their have been many other contributing factors to the Dutch lenient sentencing culture.

It is telling that on the same day Pim’s killer gets 18 years another murderer who beat someone to death in the southern part of The Netherlands is looking at a possible 10 years, as demanded by the prosecution. If the court follows that sentencing request, that killer will be out on the streets within less than 7 years. Do you know why he beat his victim to death? During a trip to the supermarket the victim asked the defendant while he was driving on a motorcycle in a pedestrian area to watch out for an elderly lady. He was killed for that. So within 7 years that person will be out on the streets again and do we have any illusion that he will be rehabilitated after that period?

In short, the principles of retribution and prevention have gone pretty much out of the window and that is something that deeply saddens me. While I realize that severe sentences are not always the solution in dealing with escalating crime rates, it does seem to me that the rights of the victim, the feelings of a victim’s family as well the overall safety of society at large should be paramount considerations in dealing with criminal elements. Rehabilitation is a worthwhile cause but success is often very limited and it should never be the priority.

In sentencing Fortuyn’s killer the court outlined that prevention is indeed an important part of sentencing but that a life sentence is not necessarily the way to achieve that. Well, what is it that the judges suggest can be done to implement some measure of prevention? The Dutch criminal justice system leaves little room as it can apply a life sentence (which the court did not do) or a maximum of 20 years (of which only two-thirds are mandatory) so the option effectively was between life and 13 years. There is nothing in between and given the Dutch abhorrence of life sentences and the seriousness of the crime it would have been better to go for that middle ground of, say, 30 years without parole. This would also have met with Fortuyn’s family expectations:

Simon Fortuyn, Pim Fortuyn's brother, told reporters he "was not so filled with rancor that I have to see him behind bars for the rest of his life."

I will keep you informed of the appeal that the prosecution team will file shortly.