No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Alternative Penal Sanctions in the Netherlands
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
On 8 December 1971, the Police Court (Politierechter) of Arnhem convicted a defendant of having committed overt and joint violence against persons: he had severely beaten a passer-by in a public street. The judgment attracted general attention because the Court imposed a partially conditional sentence subject to the special condition that the offender should work every week-end for a period of three months in the Sociaal-Paedagogisch Centrum ‘s Konings Jaght at Schaarsbergen near Arnhem. The defendant fulfilled this condition. Through counsel, he had himself offered to do this work.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1983
References
1. See Supreme Court, 31 Oct. 1972, NJ 1973, 44.
2. Cf. Supreme Court, 26 Nov. 1968, NJ 1970, 123, with a note by Ch. J. Enschedé.
3. Surveys in NJ 1917, pp. 328, 889; NJ 1918, pp. 307, 942; NJ 1919, pp. 284, 822; NJ 1920, p. 621; NJ 1921 p. 28.
4. Act of 26 Oct. 1973, S 509.
5. See Bill 13386, introduced 25 April 1975.
6. Cf. Annual Report of Attorneys-General to the Courts of Appeal, 1970.
7. The closed centres were only used in the day-time for hearings and visits, for which purposes accused persons were transported by car; they became “day centres”.
8. Steenhuis, D.W., Rijden onder invloed, (Assen 1972)Google Scholar. See also reply of Koopmans, A.J. Cnoop in Proces (1974) pp. 207 et seqGoogle Scholar.
9. Written report, Hand. NJV 1974, part I, sec. doc, p. 54.
10. Singer-Dekker, H., van der Kruys, P. and Hoogman, P., “Niet zitten, maar werken, hier en overzee”, Proces (1974) pp. 79–85 and 198–203Google Scholar.
11. Cf. Schootstra, H., “De voorwaardelijke veroordeling”, Proces (1974) p. 197Google Scholar.
12. Cf. Hulsman, L.H.C., who refers to “diversion” in his contribution to the Interim Report Community Service, p. 43Google Scholar.
13. See also de Hullu, J., Opvattingen over dienstverlening; WODC Report Ministry of Justice, 09. 1981Google Scholar, Verzamelingen opvattingen van O.M., Reclassering en Advocatuur.
14. See, inter alia, contributions in Proces, Oct. 1979; van Engelen, W. “Blijven we zitten” Proces (1980) pp. 89 et seqGoogle Scholar; Tigges, L.C.M. “ Dienstverlening, een te missen kans”, 1 NJB (1981) pp. 6 et seqGoogle Scholar; van Kalmthout, A.M., “Heeft de alternatieve straf nog toekomst?” Proces (1981) pp. 8 et seq. and 197 et seqGoogle Scholar; van Haaien, Th., “Reclassering, toezicht of hulpverlening?” Proces (1981) pp. 24 et seqGoogle Scholar.
15. Schaffmeister, D., De korte vrijheidsstraf ah vrije tijdsstraf, inaugural address (Leiden 1982)Google Scholar.
16. This inequality is reduced, although not removed, by the fact that the Minister does not rule out applications for community service by an accused committed for trial in a district where community service does not exist. Such applications should not be rejected in advance, if community service could take place in a district designated as an experimental area. (See p. 2 of the letter to the Attorneys General, of 20 Nov. 1979).
17. Letter of the State-Secretary of Justice to Chief Public Prosecutors, Probation Boards and the Probation Services, of 15 April 1982.
18. See also Junger-Tas, J., “Community service en Dienstverlening, een kritische beschouwing”, DD (1981) pp. 5 et seq.Google Scholar
19. See also the arguments in favour of the judicial model of Singer-Dekker, H., Dienstverlening, een middel tegen die kwalen. Mulder, G.E., collection Beginselen, (Arnhem 1981) pp. 355 et seq., in particular pp. 361 et seqGoogle Scholar.
20. Loc. cit. pp. 56 et seq.