Looking further than punishment and retribution for young offenders
Youth crime has plummeted in the Netherlands. Good news, you might think. Yet we need to look critically at existing sanctions, says Professor by Special Appointment André van der Laan in his inaugural lecture. ‘We should evaluate whether our response is just.’
The Great Reduction is how Professor by Special Appointment of Juvenile and Adolescent Crime, André van der Laan, puts it. ‘Recorded youth crime has more than halved in the past 20 years’, he explains. ‘Fewer young people are committing a first crime, the number of young people with so-called ‘risk factors’ has decreased while protecting factors such as good communication with parents have increased. And technology has changed how young people spend their free time.’ Could it be a coincidence that the number of minors suspected of a crime has nose-dived since the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007?
Focus on certain groups of young people
This decrease is good news but Van der Laan has identified two concerning trends, ‘Our collective attention has broadened from young offenders to young people at risk of offending. And recorded youth crime is concentrated: there are specific neighbourhoods in which the number of young suspects is overrepresented. If the police and judiciary focus on certain neighbourhoods and groups of young people, these are automatically more likely to come into contact with the police.’
‘Young people are considered potentially dangerous without having done anything wrong.’
Van der Laan warns of the effects of this combination of attention to risk factors and so-called youth crime hotspots. ‘As individuals or areas are considered a risk and firm intervention is deemed essential, this creates stigmatisation. The exposure to risk factors alone causes young people to be considered potentially dangerous without having done anything wrong. That can be harmful.’
Feeling of distrust
In addition, says Van der Laan, their neighbourhood receiving attention increases the chances of these young people coming into contact with the police and the judiciary if they cross the line even once. ‘This can cause feelings of distrust, discrimination and defiance, particularly if young people feel the police and judiciary deal with them unfairly. If someone commits a crime, there obviously has to be a response. But are we responding in a fair way?’
A fair response ties in with the Netherlands’ responsibilities according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, says Van der Laan. ‘It’s about young people who have come into contact with the police or the judiciary feeling they were treated fairly, with respect – that they were listened to in the process, could tell their side of the story and could voice their complaints. Not only is that the right thing to do but young people who feel they were treated fairly are also more likely to recognise the legitimacy of the professionals and follow the rules.’
Research on effect of punishment
Van der Laan suggests evaluating responses to youth crime on the basis of whether young people’s rights were upheld, for example. ‘Here in the Netherlands we have many sanctions responding to youth crime but the effects and consequences of the majority of these have not been properly investigated. It is important to gain more insight into this. We shouldn’t forget that we are dealing with young people whose whole future lies ahead of them. If we only focus on the severest possible punishment and not on rehabilitation, the young people will not benefit but nor will we as a society.’
Last November, André van der Laan was appointed as professor by special appointment of Juvenile and Adolescent Crime. The chair is made possible by the Research and Data Centre (WODC) – the knowledge institute for the rule of law, part of the Ministry of Justice and Security – through a named fund at the LUF.
Text: Julie de Graaf