Judicial Rehabilitation in the Netherlands: Balancing between Safety and Privacy
| Author | Miranda Boone |
| DOI | 10.1177/206622031100300106 |
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
63
European Journal of Probation
University of Bucharest
www.ejprob.ro
Vol. 3, No.1, 2011, pp 63 – 78
ISSN: 2006 – 2203
Judicial Rehabilitation in the Netherlands:
Balancing between safety and privacy
Miranda Boone
University of Utrecht
University of Groningen
Abstract
This paper is part of a special edition on Judicial Rehabilitation, a topic that derived from
Maruna’s work on rehabilitation and rehabilitation rituals. It addresses the possibility of
such rituals in the Netherlands. It describes which data concerning criminal convictions can
be stored, how long they may be preserved and which persons and organisations can get
access to the criminal records. It also pays attention to the jobs and position for which a
conduct certificate is needed and the conditions under which it can be issued. Conclusion of
this analysis is that the stricter regulations concerning criminal records, the increase of jobs
a conduct certificate is needed for and the stricter conditions under which it is issued, hinder
the serious efforts that are made in prison and probation to reduce recidivism.
Keywords: Criminal records - Conduct certificate - Rehabilitation
Introduction
The direct cause for this paper is the finding of Maruna in Making Good (2001) that
rehabilitation rituals can contribute to the desisting–process. The essential aspect of the ritual
is the unexpected testimony of the conventional part of society, who imputes normality on the
ex-offender (Maruna, 2001:161). This ritual reinforces the offender’s necessary confidence in
the desistance-process and that of his direct environment and society in general. This inspiring
suggestion was the reason for this Special Issue describing the process of judicial
rehabilitation as it is shaped in different cultural contexts and to look for rehabilitation rituals
that could contribute to the desistance-process (see Herzog-Evans, 2011a). This paper
addresses the possibility of such rituals in the Netherlands. It describes which data concerning
criminal convictions can be stored, how long they may be preserved and which persons and
organisations can get access to the criminal records. Considerable attention will be paid to the
conduct certificate, because the hindrance that ex-convicts will experience from their criminal
records, will in practice depend mainly on the question if they need a conduct certificate to get
access to a certain position or job and if they will receive such certificate. Because of the
relation with Maruna’s work, emphasis will be put on the consequences of criminal records
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miranda Boone, E-mail: m.m.boone@uu.nl
64
for ex-prisoners although, unfortunately, the registration of these records can also seriously
affect the lives of those who received less serious sentences.
Less will be said about formal rehabilitation rituals (see Maruna, 2011), for the simple reason
that they do not exist as such in the Dutch Criminal Justice System. The proposition will be
defended, however, that the conduct certificate procedure itself can be characterised as a
rehabilitation ritual.
Re-socialisation and rehabilitation in the Netherlands
Re-socialisation is an important aim of the implementation of sanctions in the Netherlands.
Section 2 of the Penitentiary Principles Act states that sanctions ‘should prepare the convict as
much as possible for his return into society’ and together with the principle of minimal
restrictions, the re-socialisation principle forms the heart of the Dutch penitentiary law since
1953. The Dutch re-socialisation concept is as such not known to the English vocabulary. The
commonly used English word ‘rehabilitation’ differs from it in so far that it emphasises the
role of the outside world much more. In Dutch language rehabilitation has two connotations:
correction of a reputation that was harmed undeservedly and the meaning it has in underlying
records: restoration of a convict in his legal rights, as such it is perfectly usable in this context.
Like the concept of ‘rehabilitation,’ the term ‘re-integration’ looks forward to the result after
ending the sentence, a meaning that the re-socialisation concept totally lacks. Morgenstern
(2011) emphasizes the legal significance of re-socialisation as a right. In the Netherlands, the
principle is formulated as an aim of the implementation of sentences that has significance
during the execution of the sentence, but not so much in the period afterwards. It is formal
policy (Parliamentary Documents II, 2004/05, 27834, nr. 36) that the position of the ex-
prisoner concerning the realisation of his social rights, does not differ fundamentally from the
(weak) position of the average citizen (Uggen, Manza and Behrens, 2004, Boone, 2005b) and
as such is not a responsibility of the Department of Justice.
Re-socialisation as an aim of sentencing is a very important topic nowadays among both
academics and policy-makers, but only in the strict sense of reducing recidivism. The
publication of the first results of the recidivism monitor indicating that over 70% of the adult
offenders recommitted a criminal offence within seven years and almost 50% within a year
(Wartna, Tollenaars en Essers, 2005), together with the agitation in society and politics
concerning the high recidivism rates of certain categories of offenders, put the topic of
reducing recidivism on the political agenda after a period in which the significance of the re-
socialisation concept eroded (Boone, 2007). Inspiration was found in the work of the
Canadian scholars Andrews and Bonta on ‘What Works’ and the practical implementation of
their work in Canada and England (Bonta, 2002; Perry, 2002). The points of departure of their
Risk Need Responsivity-model (Ward and Maruna 2007) are radically implemented in the
Push Back Recidivism Program that was introduced in 2002 (Van der Linden, 2004). First,
every probationer and almost all detainees are screened on the criminogenic factors as defined
in the ‘What Works’ literature. Second, cognitive behavioural interventions are applied that
have a demonstrable positive effect on recidivism. Third, only interventions are subsidized
that are tested by an acknowledgement committee modelled after the British accreditation
panel (see Maguire, et al., 2010). Finally, an ambitious After Care Program was introduced
for all ex-detainees, aiming to prepare their return into society with regard to four major
fields: income, housing, identity papers and care.
To continue reading
Request your trial